2013 (12) TMI 1389 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty on clandestine removal of goods - Held that - Shortage of goods admitted to have been cleared from the factory without preparing Central Excise invoices and payment of duty - During investigation no question has been asked which could reveal the knowledge or even intention on the part of the authorised signatory - Penalty on a person cannot be imposed on assumption and presumption - The department has chosen to pursue vigorously such a case without disclosing how the finding of facts by the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Frivolous appeal by the department, Penalty imposition on authorised signatory, Lack of evidence for knowledge or intention, Comparison with previous cases, Lack of grounds for appeal

Frivolous Appeal by the Department:
The judgment addresses a frivolous appeal by the department regarding the imposition of a penalty on the authorised signatory of a company for the clearance of goods without preparing invoices or paying duty. The original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the signatory. The Tribunal notes that the case lacks material evidence to prove that the signatory had knowledge or intention regarding the clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal emphasizes that penalties cannot be imposed based on assumptions or presumptions.

Penalty Imposition on Authorised Signatory:
The case involves M/s. S.S. Flavours Pvt. Ltd., where a penalty was imposed on the authorised signatory for the clearance of goods without proper documentation and payment of duty. The original authority confirmed the duty liability on the company and imposed penalties. However, the Tribunal found that there was no concrete evidence to establish the signatory's involvement in the wrongful act. The Tribunal highlights the importance of factual findings and the need for substantial grounds to uphold penalties.

Lack of Evidence for Knowledge or Intention:
The judgment points out the absence of evidence indicating that the authorised signatory had knowledge or intention regarding the clearance of goods without invoices and duty payment. Despite the signatory agreeing to pay the duty for the short found goods, the investigation did not reveal any questions that could ascertain the signatory's involvement. The Tribunal stresses the necessity of concrete proof before imposing penalties on individuals.

Comparison with Previous Cases:
The department relied on previous cases to support its appeal, citing decisions from the Tribunal in different matters. However, the Tribunal distinguishes the facts of those cases from the present case and notes that the grounds of appeal do not provide sufficient material to challenge the Commissioner's findings. The Tribunal emphasizes the need for substantial grounds to contest decisions and discourages pursuing frivolous appeals.

Lack of Grounds for Appeal:
The Tribunal concludes that the department's appeal lacked merit as it failed to demonstrate how the Commissioner's findings were incorrect. Despite the disputed penalty amount being minimal at Rs. 10,000, the department pursued the case without substantial grounds for appeal. The judgment advises focusing on improving investigation processes rather than engaging in baseless appeals.

Final Clarification:
The judgment clarifies that no opinion is expressed on the findings against the assessee who voluntarily paid the duty during the investigation process. This statement aims to separate the penalty issue from the duty payment aspect, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision pertains specifically to the penalty imposition on the authorised signatory.