2014 (9) TMI 408 - HC - Central Excise

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Redemption fine - retracted statement - Held that - There are cogent and justifiable reasons assigned by the Tribunal in negating the retracted statement offered by proprietor of the assessee-appellant. Even the learned counsel has not been able to point out anything from the record that the alleged labourers were ever produced for examination in support of the retracted statement. The case of the Revenue is well supported that there was excess of 31.331 MTs of finished goods, which were not accounted for in the records maintained by the assessee-appellant. The Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee-appellant was aware of the fact that the raw material of the goods in question was purchased from the gray market and the same was not accounted for. Had there been no detection, the finished goods would have been certainly cleared without payment of duty and without issuance of any invoice. The retraction is nothing but to create a false plea of defence only. Thus, the redemption fine and penalty has been rightly imposed. Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against Tribunal's order upholding penalty and redemption fine reduction.
2. Contravention of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules by excess stock of finished goods.
3. Statement admission of excess stock and subsequent retraction by the proprietor.
4. Confiscation and penalty imposition by Deputy Commissioner.
5. Appeal process leading to Tribunal's decision on redemption fine and penalty reduction.
6. Tribunal's analysis of the case and decision on the quantum of redemption fine and penalty.
7. Evaluation of the Tribunal's decision by the High Court and dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order upholding the penalty and redemption fine reduction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal had reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 and the penalty from Rs. 90,317 to Rs. 50,000.
2. The case involved the contravention of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules due to an excess stock of finished goods found during a visit by Central Excise officers to the factory premises. The excess stock was of 31.331 MTs of MS Bars intended for clandestine removal without payment of duty.
3. The proprietor initially admitted to the excess stock in a statement but later retracted it, claiming misreporting by illiterate laborers. However, the retraction was not supported with evidence or examination of the laborers by the authorities.
4. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and redemption fine, but the Tribunal remanded the matter back for further consideration.
5. The appeal process involved multiple orders by different authorities, leading to the Tribunal's decision on the redemption fine and penalty reduction, which was challenged by the appellant.
6. The Tribunal analyzed the case, considering the lack of evidence supporting the retraction of the statement and the conscious knowledge of the appellant regarding the unaccounted purchase of raw material. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty based on the singular incident of clandestine removal during the financial year.
7. The High Court evaluated the Tribunal's decision and found no legal infirmity, upholding the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the retraction was an attempt to create a false defense, and the appellant was aware of the irregularities in stock maintenance and duty payment.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty. The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the imposition of penalties based on the evidence of excess stock and conscious knowledge of irregular practices by the appellant.