2005 (11) TMI 525 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Reduction of duty amount confirmed in adjudication
- Incorrect reduction of penalty
- Clandestine removal of cement
- Requirement of proof from raw material accounts
- Penalty imposed by the Commissioner

Reduction of Duty Amount Confirmed in Adjudication:
The main issue revolved around the clandestine removal of cement by the respondent assessee. The Revenue alleged duty evasion of &8377; 7,60,759 due to the clearance of 4,558.450 MTs beyond the duty-paid clearance. The Commissioner, however, after examining the raw material account, found non-duty paid clearance only to the extent of 1320.530 MTs. The remaining quantity was claimed to be purchased from the market without any supporting evidence. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner erred in requiring proof from raw material accounts when clandestine removal was established through private records. The Tribunal upheld the original finding of clandestine removal based on evidence, rejecting the assessee's defense. Consequently, the duty demand was restored to the initial amount of &8377; 7,60,759 confirmed in adjudication.

Incorrect Reduction of Penalty:
The cross-objection by the assessee pertained to the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's appeal concerning duty demand, as evidence supported the clandestine removal of cement. The assessee's explanation of purchasing part of the cement from the market lacked substantiating evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal increased the penalty on the manufacturer to &8377; 4 lakhs, aligning with the duty demand restoration. The Tribunal rejected the cross-objection seeking a reduction in penalty, affirming the Commissioner's decision on penalty imposition.

Clandestine Removal of Cement and Proof Requirement:
The core issue was the alleged clandestine removal of cement by the assessee, leading to duty evasion. While the Revenue authorities confirmed duty evasion of &8377; 7,60,759 based on private records showing excess clearance, the Commissioner, upon scrutiny, found a lesser non-duty paid clearance supported by raw material accounts. The Tribunal upheld the original finding of clandestine removal, emphasizing the lack of evidence for the claimed market purchases. It deemed the Commissioner's requirement for proof from raw material accounts justified, thereby reinstating the duty demand to the initial confirmed amount.

Penalty Imposed by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty on the manufacturer, which was challenged through a cross-objection by the assessee. The Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence, supported the Revenue's appeal regarding duty demand and clandestine removal. It increased the penalty to &8377; 4 lakhs in line with the duty demand restoration, rejecting the assessee's plea for a penalty reduction. The Tribunal's decision aligned the penalty with the findings on duty evasion and upheld the Commissioner's penalty imposition.

---