9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Duty demand on clandestine removal of branded cheroots - Penalties for non-intimation of transfer of manufacturing premises and lack of valid Central Excise license - Validity of duty exemption under Notification No. 167/78 - Reliability of evidence including private registers and statements of witnesses - Retraction of statements by appellants - Computation of duty under Section 4(4)(d)(iii) Analysis: 1. Duty Demand on Clandestine Removal: The case involved appeals against an Order-in-Original confirming a duty demand of Rs. 6,63,948.06 on clandestine removal of branded cheroots. The Central Excise officers found discrepancies in the RG 1 register, leading to non-accountal of cheroots. Private registers and witness statements were used to confirm the duty and penalties. The appellants argued for duty exemption under Notification No. 167/78 based on consistent pricing since 1978. 2. Reliability of Evidence: The appellants contested the reliability of evidence, including witness statements and private registers. They argued that witness statements were retracted and not corroborated, and private registers also accounted for legally procured cheroots. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing the need for reliable evidence to establish clandestine removal. 3. Retraction of Statements: The appellants retracted their statements, alleging duress during recording. However, the Tribunal noted a court judgment rejecting claims of coercion, supporting the original authority's reliance on the statements. The Tribunal found no infirmity in accepting these statements despite retractions. 4. Computation of Duty: The appellants challenged the duty computation, citing Section 4(4)(d)(iii) for relooking at the duty calculation. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and remanded the matter to the original authority for recomputation based on cum duty price, as per the cited legal provisions. 5. Penalties and Final Decision: The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed, considering them fair and proportionate. The duty demand was subject to recomputation under Section 4(4)(d)(ii), potentially reducing it to Rs. 4.42 lakhs. The appeals were disposed of based on these findings, without reducing the penalties. In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to duty demand on clandestine removal, the reliability of evidence, retraction of statements, computation of duty, and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand subject to recomputation, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence and legal provisions in such cases.
|
