2003 (4) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-payment of duty for goods cleared under specific invoices.
2. Incorrect preparation of documents and alleged duplicate unaccounted removals.
3. Imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules.
4. Confiscation and redemption fines.
5. Liability of interest on duty confirmed.
6. Individual penalties on company officials.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-payment of Duty for Goods Cleared under Specific Invoices:
The Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,70,652.00 for goods cleared under Invoice Nos. 159-167 from 17-7-98 to 20-7-98 without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that the non-debit entries were an error in accounting rather than an intentional evasion of duty, as there was a balance in the RG 23A-Pt.-II register. Thus, no further duty and penalty were required for this issue.

2. Incorrect Preparation of Documents and Alleged Duplicate Unaccounted Removals:
For the demand of Rs. 1,37,181.00 under Annexure 'D', the Commissioner concluded that the assessee had cleared goods under four invoices without payment of duty by resorting to wilful mis-statement. The Tribunal upheld this finding, confirming the duty amount along with applicable interest and penalties.

3. Imposition of Penalties under Various Provisions:
The Tribunal addressed several penalties:
- Section 11AC Penalty: Initially Rs. 3,13,461/-, reduced to Rs. 1,37,181/- equivalent to the confirmed duty amount.
- Rule 173Q and Rule 8(c) Penalties: The Tribunal did not uphold additional penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs each under these rules, considering the circumstances and prior payments made by the appellants.

4. Confiscation and Redemption Fines:
The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of excisable goods valued at Rs. 4,96,043.00 and the truck valued at Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal found the confiscation of goods due to accounting errors unjustifiable and set aside the confiscation order. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the Works Manager for his role in the incorrect documentation.

5. Liability of Interest on Duty Confirmed:
Interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act was confirmed on the duty amount of Rs. 1,37,181/-.

6. Individual Penalties on Company Officials:
- Chairman: The penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Chairman under Rule 209A was set aside as it was based on assumptions and not on concrete evidence of his involvement in day-to-day operations.
- Works Manager: The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the Works Manager under Rule 209A was upheld due to his responsibility for ensuring compliance with Central Excise procedures.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by confirming certain duty demands and penalties while setting aside others. The final order included a reduced penalty under Section 11AC, confirmation of interest on the duty amount, and specific penalties on company officials based on their roles and responsibilities.