2013 (8) TMI 203 - AT - Central Excise

Suppression of tax - manufacture of gutka without licence - Held that - This a case involving manufacture without getting registration thus attracting charge of suppression. Duty for the previous period involving excluded period is rightly confirmed though the adjudicating authority has failed to impose penalty of equivalent amount under section 11AC - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order in appeal upholding original order
- Conducting manufacturing activity without Central Excise Registration
- Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties
- Confirmation of demand for Central Excise duty
- Upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)

Issue 1: Appeal against order in appeal upholding original order
The appeal was filed against the order in appeal No. 4/CE/Appl/KNP/2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Kanpur, which upheld the original order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Jhansi. The appellant did not appear during the proceedings, and the matter was examined by the Judge with the assistance of the ld.DR. The Judge found that the adjudicating authority had thoroughly examined the case, and the order was upheld due to the appellant's engagement in manufacturing activities without Central Excise Registration, leading to the confirmation of duties, penalties, and interest.

Issue 2: Conducting manufacturing activity without Central Excise Registration
During a search at the factory premises, it was discovered that the appellant was involved in filling and packaging Bhairav Brand Gutkha without obtaining Central Excise Registration. The search revealed that production had started without proper registration, and goods were being cleared for sale in the market without payment of duty. The officers seized the goods and rightly confiscated them. Additionally, handwritten dispatch slips were found, indicating the clandestine removal of goods without duty payment, leading to the confirmation of the demand on the unregistered goods.

Issue 3: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties
The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods, imposed penalties under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty. The penalties included confiscation of Bhairav Gutkha pouches, imposition of penalties on M/s. Shrinath Products, and the confirmation of Central Excise duty demand along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no deficiency in the adjudicating authority's order and upheld the findings, leading to the confirmation of penalties and duties.

Issue 4: Confirmation of demand for Central Excise duty
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty on the unregistered goods manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. The appellant's active involvement in manufacturing and clearing goods without proper registration led to the confirmation of the duty demand, along with the imposition of penalties and interest. The Judge noted that the adjudicating authority had thoroughly examined the case details and correctly passed the order, upholding the confirmation of duties.

Issue 5: Upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)
After examining the facts and grounds of appeal, the Judge found no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the decision. The Judge emphasized that the case involved manufacturing without proper registration, attracting charges of suppression, and the adjudicating authority had appropriately confirmed the duties and penalties. The appeal was rejected, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, concluding the legal proceedings.