2018 (3) TMI 607 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - scope of SCN - receipt of inputs not recorded in books - duplicate set of invoices - Held that - the amounts such as ₹ 318840, ₹ 72,420 and ₹ 35,088 were the amounts which were paid along with interest before issues of show cause notices therefore under the provisions of sub section 2B of section 11A of central excise act, 1944 show cause notice was not authorized to be issued. In respect of the allegation of clandestine removal, about which revenue states that as such all entries mentioned in the four note pads were correlated and tallied with central excise invoices issued by the appellant and in next sentence revenue mentioned that it was observed that there is no corresponding central excise invoice covering despatches as shown in the said reseumed private note pads. The said two contentions are contradictory to each other which gives an impression that there was total confusion in the minds of people who have issued SCN. Therefore, such SCN which is unclear and confusing is not sustainable in law. Penalty - Held that - since the allegations of clandestine removal are not established penalty imposed on Amarjeet Singh and Shri Mohan Singh are also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Allegations of central excise duty evasion, inadmissible Cenvat credit, removal of cenvatable inputs, and clearances without payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, related to allegations of central excise duty evasion. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of TVs and VCD players.
2. The investigation conducted by excise officers revealed discrepancies in the records, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice in 2009. The notice demanded payment of various amounts for duty evasion, inadmissible Cenvat credit, and other violations.
3. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demands in the impugned order dated 31.12.2010, directing the appellant to pay the disputed amounts along with interest and imposing substantial penalties.
4. The appellant contested the show cause notice, arguing that the recovered note pads were merely records of orders received and dispatched legitimately. They refuted the allegations of clandestine manufacturing and issuance of duplicate or unsigned invoices.
5. Upon hearing the arguments, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the show cause notice itself, noting contradictions in the allegations regarding the correlation between note pads and central excise invoices. The confusion and lack of clarity in the notice rendered it unsustainable in law.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and granting relief to the appellants. The amounts already paid by the appellant, along with interest, were not to be disturbed. Penalties imposed on individuals for alleged involvement in evasion were also overturned.
7. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of clarity and consistency in show cause notices and emphasized the need for allegations to be substantiated with concrete evidence. The judgment provided significant relief to the appellants by overturning the penalties and setting aside the order-in-original.