2007 (10) TMI 280 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - statutory records/other private records can be relied after giving opportunity of hearing to appellant original authority plaing reliance on register which does not show the actual clearance but contained only the orders received - reliance placed on the chartered engineer s certificate to estimate production capacity is not appropriate - charge of unaccounted production and clandestine removal is upheld - matter remanded to re-determine duty, penalty and interest

Summary

Issues:
Clandestine removal, duplication of demand, reliance on documents, production capacity estimation, duty evasion, penalty imposition.

Analysis:

Clandestine Removal:
The case involves an appeal against an order confirming a demand for duty on alleged clandestine removal of goods. The appellant contests the findings but does not dispute the existence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal notes the presence of unaccounted goods and private records during the investigation.

Duplication of Demand:
The appellant argues that there is a duplication of demand and contests the duty amount claimed by the authorities. They assert that the duty involved should be lower than what is proposed by the department, based on their interpretation of the records.

Reliance on Documents:
The Tribunal examines the reliance placed on various documents, including notebooks and registers, to determine the duty liability. It questions the accuracy of these documents and the methodology used to calculate the duty amount, emphasizing the need for clarity on the actual clearances made.

Production Capacity Estimation:
The Tribunal rejects the use of a certificate from a chartered engineer to estimate production capacity for a past period, highlighting the importance of accurate and relevant evidence in determining duty liability.

Duty Evasion and Penalty Imposition:
While upholding the charge of unaccounted production and clandestine removal, the Tribunal decides to remand the matter to the original authority for reworking the duty and interest amounts. The penalty imposition is linked to the duty evasion, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of the duty liability before determining the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a detailed reevaluation of the duty liability, interest, and penalty imposition based on the findings and submissions presented. The appellant is directed to provide a detailed worksheet for assessment within a specified timeframe, and the original authority is instructed to expedite the decision-making process within a set timeline.