2013 (6) TMI 212 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - verification of the loaded truck - it was found excess quantity of 11,500 Kgs. over and above the quantity shown in the invoice - penalty u/s 11AC - held that - The Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal, both have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that demand of duty on the basis of Notebook is not sustainable in absence of sufficient corroborative evidence. It has been further held by both the authorities that Invoice No. 64 dated 7th January, 2005 cannot be rejected for three days delay to produce before the Central Excise Officers. The question involved in the present appeal relates to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts recorded by Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal both. - decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties - Duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act - Validity of the impugned order - Question of law - Stay application dismissal.

Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Seized Goods and Imposition of Penalties:
The case involved an appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Central Excise Officers intercepted a truck loaded with excise goods, finding an excess quantity of 11,500 Kgs. over what was shown in the invoice. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods, imposed duty, and penalties on both respondents. An appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority, which was then dismissed by the Tribunal. The key issue was whether the demand of duty based on the notebook was sustainable without sufficient corroborative evidence.

2. Validity of the Impugned Order:
The High Court considered the submissions of the appellant's counsel and reviewed the reasons provided by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal for setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order. It was noted that the Invoice No. 64 dated 7th January, 2005 was produced before the Adjudicating Authority even before the notice to show cause was issued. Both the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal had reached a concurrent finding that demanding duty based on the notebook without enough corroborative evidence was not sustainable. They also held that a three-day delay in producing Invoice No. 64 was not a valid reason for rejection. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order to warrant interference.

3. Question of Law and Stay Application Dismissal:
The central question in the appeal revolved around factual issues, with both the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal recording concurrent findings of fact. The High Court concluded that there was no question of law involved in the appeal and, therefore, dismissed it. The stay application was also dismissed in light of the overall decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in duty-related matters and the significance of timely production of relevant documents before the authorities.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The judgment highlighted the necessity of sufficient corroborative evidence in duty-related cases and the importance of timely submission of relevant documents during proceedings before the authorities.