2005 (6) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of proviso clause of Section 11A(l) for duty demand and penalty on grounds of undervaluation and short payment of duty.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing MMF on job work, were aggrieved by an order demanding duty and penalty for undervaluation and short payment of duty between March 1996 to April 1998. The Additional Commissioner confirmed duty demands and penalty, which was upheld by CCE(A) after a pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs. However, the Tribunal remanded the case, and upon hearing, it was found that the appellants followed the procedure of paying duty based on prices declared by Merchants/Traders. The reliance on statements of five merchants advising incorrect declarations was deemed insufficient as there was no evidence of benefit to the appellants from undervaluing. The appellants also availed deemed credit benefit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.), and the stringent provisions of the notification made it unlikely for the appellants to knowingly abet misdeclaration for a few clients. The failure to offer the deponents for cross-examination was fatal to the Revenue's case. The demands were also found to be barred by limitation, and since no mens rea of knowingly misdeclared value was found, the penalty imposed on the appellants and the Director was set aside.

In conclusion, the order demanding duty and penalty was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.