2002 (3) TMI 108 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged suppression of manufacture and clandestine removal of Video Magnetic Tapes and Cassettes.
2. Alleged discrepancies in clearance figures as per gate-passes and railway receipts.
3. Alleged manufacture of E-185 cassettes without proper documentation.
4. Alleged maintenance of double sets of invoices.

Summary:

1. Alleged Suppression of Manufacture and Clandestine Removal:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Columbia Electronics Ltd. against the Adjudication Order demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 68,93,847.47 and imposing an equal amount of penalty for allegedly suppressing the manufacture of Video Magnetic Tapes and Cassettes and clearing them without payment of duty. The appellant argued that the department's case was based on surmises and conjectures and insufficient evidence. They contended that the factory's remote location made it improbable for goods to be transported without detection.

2. Alleged Discrepancies in Clearance Figures:
The department's case included discrepancies between the figures of clearances as per gate-passes and railway receipts. The appellant claimed that the difference was due to the re-dispatch of returned goods from Bhopal. However, the Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant failed to produce any evidence supporting this claim. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, noting that the appellant did not dispute the dispatch of goods and failed to provide documentary evidence.

3. Alleged Manufacture of E-185 Cassettes:
The department alleged that the appellant manufactured E-185 cassettes based on an entry in a diary and a telegram sent to a customer. The appellant argued that the note in the diary was not reliable and that their request for cross-examination of the person who made the note was denied. The Tribunal found that the department's conclusion was supported by the evidence, including the internal office memo and the telegram, and upheld the finding of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods.

4. Alleged Maintenance of Double Sets of Invoices:
The department alleged that the appellant maintained double sets of invoices, citing four instances from 1990-91. The appellant contended that there was no evidence of actual removal and dispatch of goods related to the discounted bills. The Tribunal observed that in cases of clandestine removal, the Revenue is not required to prove each document's removal and dispatch. The Tribunal found no substance in the appellant's explanation and upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty as confirmed in the impugned Order but reduced the penalty to Rs. 30 lakhs. The appeal was otherwise rejected.