2008 (10) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

DTA clearance by EOU - The Commissioner has relied upon the statements of the owner of the transport company the statements of Shri Kadarbhai who had given delivery challans in the name of a fictitious company and there were statements of the employees of the appellant how the transport was arranged and how papers were managed etc. Therefore we find that the claim of the appellants that goods were not unauthorisedly diverted has been correctly rejected by the Commissioner. The appellants also have submitted that M/s. RTPL had demanded the CT-3 forms back subsequently and this shows that they were involved. The Department s case has nothing to do with the CT-3 certificate and the Department s case is that the CT-3 was only for record purposes and the goods were actually sent for disposal at Bhiwandi Demand of duty interest and penalty upheld.

Summary

Issues: Seizure of goods, diversion to Domestic Tariff Area, duty demand, interest, penalties, delay in proceedings

Seizure of Goods:
The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), had 16,847.71 Kgs. of Polyester Texturised Yarn (PTY) seized by Central Excise officers during transportation without proper invoices. The Commissioner confiscated the goods, demanded duty on PTY diverted to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), and imposed penalties after investigation and adjudication proceedings.

Diversion to Domestic Tariff Area:
The appellant was entitled to exemption from duty as a 100% EOU but diverted PTY meant for export to the DTA. Despite claiming innocence and alleging the involvement of another EOU, the evidence, including statements from transport company owners and employees, supported the Commissioner's findings of unauthorized diversion.

Duty Demand, Interest, Penalties:
The impugned order demanded duty on the diverted PTY and on Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) used in PTY manufacture, along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner relied on statements and evidence to support the duty demand and penalties imposed.

Delay in Proceedings:
The appeal process faced delays due to the appellant's lack of interest and non-appearance during hearings. Despite multiple adjournments and opportunities, the appellant failed to actively pursue the case, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution. The appellant's lack of seriousness in pursuing the matter was evident from the history of the case, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the appellant's claims of innocence and lack of involvement in the diversion of goods. The delay caused by the appellant's non-appearance and lack of seriousness in pursuing the case contributed to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of active participation in legal proceedings and adherence to procedural requirements in matters involving duty evasion and diversion of goods.