2008 (1) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Delay in filing appeal can t be condoned if there if application did not state number of days of delay & not supported by any cogent evidence for the delay - Appellant failed to prove its clearance with full proof of export as well as domestic sale Xerox copies of shipping bills produced is not admissible document - held that claim for goods exported is denied and bound to be dutiable and the domestic clearances not corroborated by statutory record also were liable to duty - demand confirmed

Issues:
Condonaion of delay in filing Excise Appeal, Duty demand and penalty imposition, Failure to provide evidence for clearances, Misleading information provided, Abuse of process of law.

Analysis:
1. Condonaion of delay in filing Excise Appeal:
The Miscellaneous Application sought condonation of delay in filing Excise Appeal No. EDM-402/07 against the de novo order of adjudication. The Appellant cited unprecedented water logging due to heavy rain as the reason for the marginal delay in filing the appeal. However, the Application did not specify the number of days of delay or provide cogent evidence for the delay. The Revenue argued that the Appellant's delay was deliberate and sought dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing that the Appellant failed to file the appeal within the three-month period allowed by law. The Tribunal scrutinized the Application and found it lacking in seriousness and a vigilant attitude towards seeking appeal remedy, ultimately concluding that condoning the delay would be an abuse of process of law.

2. Duty demand and penalty imposition:
The duty demand of Rs. 31,14,865/- was raised for alleged failure to provide proof of export, and a demand of Rs. 41,72,954/- was levied for clearing branded and unbranded footwear without disclosure in statutory records. Penalty was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant failed to satisfy the Adjudicating Authority with evidence for clearances, even after multiple opportunities, leading to the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties imposed, emphasizing the Appellant's failure to provide credible evidence to support their claims.

3. Failure to provide evidence for clearances:
The Appellant claimed to have documents supporting their clearances for domestic sale and export. However, the Adjudicating Authority found the Appellant's evidence lacking and contradictory. The Appellant's submission of Xerox copies of export invoices was deemed inadmissible, leading to the denial of benefits for export consignments. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence for export and domestic clearances, ultimately upholding the Authority's decision based on the lack of credible evidence presented by the Appellant.

4. Misleading information provided:
The Adjudicating Authority highlighted instances where the Appellant provided misleading information regarding the submission of original export documents. Discrepancies were found between the Appellant's claims and the actual documents submitted, indicating an attempt to mislead the adjudication process. The Authority concluded that the Appellant's failure to provide genuine proof of export and domestic sales rendered their case fatal, leading to the imposition of duties and penalties.

5. Abuse of process of law:
Considering the Appellant's conduct throughout the proceedings, including the failure to provide adequate evidence, misleading information, and the attempt to seek repeated remands, the Tribunal deemed the Appellant's actions as an abuse of the legal process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of preventing such abuse to uphold the integrity of the legal system and dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, Appeal, and Stay Petition in the interest of justice.

← Previous Next →