9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 86 - AT - Central ExciseEvasion of duty - goods involved in the said parallel invoices did not suffer duty - Held that - Before issue of show cause notice said duty was paid and interest was paid during compliance to Order of Stay passed by this Tribunal - penalty upheld - The appellant is given an option to pay 25% of the said penalty within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order. Clandestine supply of goods to V.K. Industries - Held that - Except the inspection certificates there was no other evidence such as procurement of raw materials, clandestine removal, realization of sale proceeds, etc., and therefore, the said allegation is not sustainable. Personal penalty on the other appellant under Rule, 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - Since there was no confiscation of goods, personal penalty of ₹ 13 lakhs imposed on the other appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues involved:
Central Excise duty demand, penalty imposition, discrepancies in recorded manufacture, clandestine supply allegations, penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, penalty under Section 11AC, reduction of penalty, compliance with statutory limitations, evidence requirement for clandestine manufacture. Analysis: 1. Central Excise Duty Demand: The case involved a demand for Central Excise Duty amounting to ?34,89,665 based on investigations. The demand was confirmed at ?13,02,885 after various stages of litigation. The demand included discrepancies in recorded manufacture, alleged clandestine supply to V.K. Industries, and issues related to parallel invoices. 2. Penalty Imposition: A penalty of ?13 lakhs was imposed on one of the appellants under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant argued against the penalty, citing the lack of proposal for confiscation of goods and the requirement for involvement in dealing with goods liable for confiscation for penalty imposition. 3. Discrepancies in Recorded Manufacture: The confirmed demand included discrepancies between the recorded manufacture of goods and the quantity computed based on inspection certificates and GRs. The appellant argued that discrepancies were minor and could be due to errors in GRs. The Tribunal found the arguments sustainable in law and set aside the remaining demand. 4. Clandestine Supply Allegations: Allegations of clandestine supply to V.K. Industries were made, but the appellant contested these claims. The appellant argued that no evidence of clandestine manufacture was established beyond inspection certificates, citing a ruling by the Hon’ble High Court requiring clinching evidence for such claims. 5. Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002: The Tribunal set aside the personal penalty of ?13 lakhs imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as there was no confiscation of goods and the appellant's involvement in dealing with the goods was not established. 6. Penalty under Section 11AC: A penalty of ?6,19,602 was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant was given the option to pay 25% of the penalty within 30 days. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and granted the appellant the option for reduced penalty based on compliance with statutory limitations. 7. Reduction of Penalty and Compliance with Statutory Limitations: The appellant requested a reduction in penalties and compliance with statutory limitations. The Tribunal modified the impugned order, confirming the duty demand of ?6,19,602, imposing a penalty under Section 11AC, and setting aside the remaining demand and personal penalty under Rule 26. 8. Evidence Requirement for Clandestine Manufacture: The appellant argued that the allegations of clandestine supply lacked sufficient evidence beyond inspection certificates. The Tribunal considered the requirement for clinching evidence as per a ruling by the Hon’ble High Court and found the allegations unsustainable without further evidence. This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Tribunal's decision on each issue involved.
|
