2016 (11) TMI 862 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - one vehicles carrying SS patta patties weighing 4480 Kgs. which was removed against delivery challans, without payment of duty - Held that - I find that the Commissioner (Appeals), after analysing the evidences on record came to the conclusion that the goods loaded on the vehicle and removed by the appellant on 23.09.2011, was without payment of duty, being seized, hence liable for confiscation. Also, on the basis of statements and other evidences, he arrived at the conclusion that the appellants, in the past also had cleared the goods clandestinely without payment of duty. But, since the said goods were neither seized nor available for confiscation, accordingly, set aside the confiscation of the said goods. I do not see any infirmity in the above findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against OIA passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad
- Confiscation of goods cleared clandestinely without payment of duty
- Setting aside of confiscation of goods not seized but cleared in the past
- Demand for Central Excise duty on clearances with interest and penalty

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad. Despite multiple notices, the appellant did not appear, and the matter proceeded with only the ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue present. The case involved the interception of a vehicle carrying SS patta patties without payment of duty, leading to the revelation that the appellant had cleared goods in the past clandestinely without paying duty. A show cause cum demand notice was issued, resulting in the confirmation of the demand, penalty, and confiscation of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the confiscation of goods not seized but cleared in the past, which was not available for confiscation, leading to the current appeal.

The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the evidence and concluded that the goods removed by the appellant without payment of duty were liable for confiscation. The Commissioner also found that the appellant had cleared goods in the past without paying duty, but as those goods were not available for confiscation, their confiscation was set aside. The Commissioner's findings were based on corroborated facts and statements, leading to the decision to demand Central Excise duty on the clearances with interest and penalty.

The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) justified the confiscation of goods removed without payment of duty and set aside the redemption fine imposed on goods not available for confiscation. The Commissioner also upheld the demand for Central Excise duty on clearances made in the past clandestinely, along with interest and penalty. The appellant's contentions regarding the confiscation of goods not available were supported by a decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal, leading to the setting aside of the redemption fine. The Commissioner's decision was based on the established intent of the appellant to evade payment of duty by suppressing production and clearance details, leading to the demand for Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings and dismissed the appeal for being devoid of merits, upholding the decision on confiscation, demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court, finalizing the case.