2013 (6) TMI 507 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - stay - Held that - no prima facie case on merits. - The clandestine removal of the goods using parallel invoices is admitted and it is clearly corroborated by seizure of MS Ingots in two trucks with parallel invoices. There were more than one unused blank book without having serial number. In a few cases it is admitted by the authorized signatory that the goods have been cleared using parallel invoices. - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties for various parties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Clandestine removal of goods using parallel invoices and admission of receiving goods without payment of excise duty.
3. Retraction of statements by key individuals and the involvement of the Managing Director in irregular activities.
4. Application of penalties on corporate entities under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
5. Admitted suppression of production of excisable goods and clandestine removal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties
The Tribunal heard stay petitions seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Various parties, including M/s. Shree Radha Krishna Alloys Pvt. Ltd., sought relief from substantial amounts of duty and penalties. The Tribunal considered the facts and submissions from both sides extensively.

Issue 2: Clandestine removal of goods and admission of receiving goods without payment
The case involved the discovery of goods carried with parallel invoices, blank invoice-books, and unaccounted clearances. The authorized signatory and purchasers admitted to clearances without bringing them into statutory accounts or paying excise duty. The Managing Director attributed the irregularities to others, leading to conflicting statements.

Issue 3: Retraction of statements and involvement of the Managing Director
Statements of key individuals were retracted through affidavits, with the Managing Director denying involvement in irregular activities. Despite the retraction, the Tribunal found prima facie evidence of the Managing Director's involvement in clandestine removal, leading to a directive for a specific pre-deposit amount.

Issue 4: Application of penalties on corporate entities
The Tribunal considered the applicability of penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on corporate entities like M/s. VRKP Steel Industries (P) Ltd. and M/s. Chamundi Steel Casting (I) Ltd. The advocates relied on precedent to argue against imposing penalties on corporate entities, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit for these parties.

Issue 5: Admitted suppression of production and clandestine removal
The Additional Commissioner sought pre-deposit based on established suppression of production and clandestine removal of excisable goods. The Tribunal found clear evidence of clandestine removal through parallel invoices and unaccounted goods, directing specific pre-deposit amounts for the involved parties and staying the recovery of certain penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the stay petitions by directing pre-deposit amounts for the appellant-assessee and the Managing Director, waiving pre-deposit for certain corporate entities, and staying the recovery of a penalty imposed on the Accountant until the appeal's disposal.