2007 (1) TMI 83 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of goods without paying duty No evidence produced by assessee in their defence Demand & penalty sustainable No specific finding has been recorded against Director of Company, no personal penalty Since excess and shortage are accepted, cross-objection are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand for duty and penalty reduction for respondent No. 1
- Penalty imposition on Director of respondent No. 1
- Cross Objection against demand for duty, redemption fine, and penalty for respondent No. 1

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order where the demand for duty of Rs. 1,12,115 was set aside for respondent No. 1. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,56,010 to Rs. 5,000 for respondent No. 1. Additionally, the penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed on Shri Abhay Agrawal, Director of the Company, was set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand of Rs. 8,340, redemption fine of Rs. 6,000, and penalty of Rs. 5,000 for respondent No. 1 in the Cross Objection against the impugned order.

2. The absence of the respondents during the hearing led to the appeal being taken up in their absence. The case involved the manufacture of Di-Octyl Phthalate (DOP) and Di-Butyl Phthalate (DBP) by respondent No. 1. Central Excise officers found discrepancies during a visit to the factory, including goods cleared without invoices or duty payment to M/s. Gupta Chemicals. Statements from involved parties indicated irregularities in invoicing and delivery of goods.

3. The learned DR argued that respondent No. 1 failed to provide evidence of goods clearance to M/s. Gupta Chemicals, as the invoices presented were in the name of local parties. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified duty and redemption fine based on admission of goods shortage and excess quantity. The respondents were found to have cleared goods to M/s. Gupta Chemicals without paying duty, leading to the demand upheld by the adjudicating authority.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the lack of specific findings on the role of Shri Abhay Agarwal in the adjudication order to impose a penalty. The appeal against respondent No. 2 was dismissed. The Cross Objection by respondent No. 1 regarding duty demand and redemption fine was rejected after considering submissions and modifications made by the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. In conclusion, the appeal against respondent No. 1 was allowed, while the appeal against respondent No. 2 was rejected. The Cross Objection filed by respondent No. 1 was also rejected. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court.