2017 (3) TMI 1361 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - mis-declaration - demand of duty with penalties - Held that - It is on record that goods were lying in premises of the appellants un-accounted and they were manufactured without obtaining any Central Excise registration - there are confessional statements of partner(s) of the appellant-assessee that the appellant-assessee was engaged in unaccounted manufacturing and clearing of subject excisable/dutiable branded goods affixed with the brand name of some other person making said goods ineligible for SSI exemption benefit. Such goods were being cleared clandestinely without accountal instatutory records with effect from 1.6.2006 despite knowing that duty of Central Excise was imposed on packing/ repacking labeling/ re-labelling of parts of automobiles w.e.f. June 1 2006 - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Central Excise Duty demand confirmation
- Imposition of penalties on the appellants

Central Excise Duty Demand Confirmation:
The case involved the confirmation of a Central Excise Duty demand of ?13,13,232 along with interest and the imposition of penalties against the appellants. The dispute arose due to the inclusion of parts of automobiles in the Central Excise Tariff Act, making Excise Duty payable with reference to MRP under Section 4A. A search conducted at the appellants' premises led to the belief that they were manufacturing goods under certain brand names not belonging to them, making them liable for Excise Duty since June 1, 2006. The Order-in-Original confirming the demands and penalties was upheld by the Order-in-Appeal, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

Imposition of Penalties on the Appellants:
The appellants argued that goods packed/re-packed and labeled/re-labeled before June 1, 2006, should not be liable for duty as the activity was not chargeable before that date. They also claimed that a large stock seized was manufactured prior to June 1, 2006, and thus not duty liable. However, the Revenue rejected these claims. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to maintain day-to-day accounts, register with the Central Excise Department, declare stock as of June 1, 2006, and were involved in unaccounted manufacturing and clearing of goods. Partners admitted to clearing goods without proper documentation. As a result, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, sustaining it and dismissing the appeals.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of Central Excise Duty demand confirmation and the imposition of penalties on the appellants, providing a detailed overview of the legal judgment and the arguments presented by both parties.