2016 (6) TMI 464 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Duty recovery of unaccounted production and clearance of block-board, decorative plywood and film laminated plywood - duty demand and penalty imposed - Held that - There was a seizure of undeclared items in the premises of the appellants. The original authority examined all the evidences and the submissions made by the appellants regarding the contention of the appellants that they were manufacturing block-board up to 31.03.2000 and there after stopped the production. This is not evidenced by the declarations filed by the appellant. The testing records and quality control records scrutinized by the Officers indicated that on various dates samples of block-boards were drawn for testing. These facts are contrary to the assertion made by the appellants. We also find that the Manager (Production) has categorically accepted the contents of hot press production chart, which shows the actual production of laminated plywood. The details available in these charts and BSRS slips showing production of various types of plywoods are not reflected in the RG-I or lab register. We find the Original Authority as well as First Appellate Authority have examined the evidences available to arrive at the conclusion of undeclared manufacture and clearance of excisable goods by the appellants. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur regarding unaccounted production and clearance of block-board, decorative plywood, and film laminated plywood.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur, dated 21.03.2006. The respondents were involved in the manufacture of commercial plywood subject to Central Excise Duty. The dispute arose from certain verifications conducted in December 2000, where unaccounted stock of block-board and laminated plywood was seized, leading to proceedings to recover Central Excise Duty for the undeclared production and clearance. The Original Authority confirmed a demand of &8377; 3,22,684/- and imposed penalties. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, prompting the appellants to file the present appeals.

The appellants raised several arguments, including that they ceased manufacturing blockboard after 01.04.2000 and did not need to file a declaration for those goods. They also claimed they did not have the machinery for manufacturing laminated plywood but only affixed film strips for market differentiation. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for allegedly failing to analyze the appellant's submissions adequately.

The Appellate Tribunal carefully considered the evidence, including the seizure of undeclared items, procurement of raw materials, and statements from the Manager (Production). The Tribunal found discrepancies between the appellants' assertions and the testing records, quality control records, and production charts. The Manager (Production) admitted to the production of laminated plywood, which was not reflected in official registers. Both the Original Authority and the First Appellate Authority had thoroughly examined the evidence, leading to the conclusion of undeclared manufacture and clearance of excisable goods by the appellants. Consequently, the appeals were deemed without merit and dismissed.

In the operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the lack of grounds for interference with the concurrent decision regarding the undeclared manufacture and clearance of excisable goods by the appellants.