2002 (1) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty demand and penalty under Rule 173Q on the company, Managing Director, and Director.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q for moving excisable goods without payment of duty.
3. Applicability of penalty on individuals under Rule 173Q.
4. Consideration of evidence and findings by the Commissioner.
5. Reduction of penalty amount imposed on the company, Managing Director, and Director.

Analysis:

1. The appeals arose from an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand and penalties on the company, Managing Director, and Director. The Commissioner, upon readjudication, determined a duty amount and imposed penalties under Rule 173Q for moving excisable goods without payment of duty. The appellants argued that the fresh worksheet was not furnished to them, contested the imposition of equal penalties, and highlighted the age of the matter and lack of available records. They questioned the imposition of penalties on the Managing Director and Director, emphasizing their lack of direct involvement in the removal of goods or duty payment.

2. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) pointed out the Commissioner's detailed findings, including discrepancies in records and the disregard of certain entries based on Batch Register and Lab Sample register. The SDR argued that the Commissioner's decision was justified due to the evidence of clandestine removal, leading to the rightful imposition of penalties. The Commissioner's analysis considered production figures, statements from witnesses, and discrepancies in the records to support the duty demand and penalties.

3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged the detailed order by the Commissioner, which provided sufficient reasoning for the duty amount determination. Despite the appellants' contentions regarding the availability of registers, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's order to be reasoned and upheld the duty demand. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,65,561 based on the Commissioner's findings and the lack of substantial contest by the appellants.

4. Regarding the imposition of penalties, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the penalty amounts imposed by the Commissioner in the original order and the de novo consideration. The Tribunal found that Rule 173Q did not apply to individuals directly and reduced the penalty on the company, Managing Director, and Director to Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 1,000 each, aligning with the directions given in the stay order. The Tribunal modified the impugned order to reflect the reduced penalty amounts and disposed of the appeals accordingly.