1987 (11) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Alleged evasion of excise duty on processed cotton fabrics, quantification of duty demand, justification of penalty amount.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a show cause notice issued to the appellant company for allegedly removing processed cotton fabrics without observing excise formalities and evading duty. The Collector of Central Excise confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 15,16,738.58 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000. The appeal challenged this order.

2. The appellant's counsel did not contest the findings on the removal of goods without duty payment but focused on the quantification of duty and justification of the penalty. They argued that the authorities erred in quantifying the processed cloth based on unjustified assumptions, such as taking the highest values for assessment. The counsel contended that the average, rather than the highest, should have been considered in the absence of sufficient material.

3. The appellant further argued that duty was demanded even on processed cloth not subject to duty, based on the description in recovered slips. The Collector's decision to demand duty without considering the nature of the process mentioned in the slips was deemed incorrect. The appellant emphasized that duty should only apply to fabric processes that warrant duty payment.

4. Regarding penalty, the appellant contended that penalty prior to a specific ordinance could not be levied retrospectively. They also highlighted that the company's management changed after the relevant period, and the penalty should be adjusted accordingly. The quantum of penalty was said to be dependent on the duty amount, which would be reworked based on the directions given.

5. The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Collector's order and remanding the case for readjudication. The duty demand needed to be properly quantified based on average values, and the penalty amount required reassessment considering the reduced duty demand. The extent of penalty reduction was left to be determined during the readjudication process.