2009 (6) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - valuation for the goods clandestinely removed similar to the valuation in case of the goods which were cleared on payment of duty - same method while arriving at the value of the goods which were clandestinely re moved and based thereon, the duty liability having been calculated - imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994 Held that - Apart from the above modification, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order and, therefore, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order dated 16-2-09 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-II.
2. Methodology adopted for valuation of products removed clandestinely without payment of duty.
3. Imposition of penalty on proprietary concerns and proprietors.
4. Penalty imposed under various provisions of law, including Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal heard appeals arising from the Commissioner's order dated 16-2-09, which disposed of proceedings following a remand by the Tribunal in earlier appeals. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to determine duty amounts and penalties afresh based on the assessable value adopted for duty-paid goods, applicable to clandestinely removed goods as well. The Tribunal limited the scope of adjudication to the remand order, focusing on duty amounts and penalties.

2. The advocate for the appellants raised concerns about the methodology used for valuing products removed clandestinely without duty payment. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner appropriately calculated duty liability by adopting a similar valuation method for clandestinely removed goods as for duty-paid goods. The Tribunal concluded that all relevant issues were settled by the earlier order, and the duty amount along with penalties needed calculation, finding no infirmity in the Commissioner's order in this regard.

3. The advocate contested the imposition of penalties on proprietary concerns and proprietors separately, stating that the law prohibits such actions. The Tribunal agreed and quashed penalties imposed on proprietary concerns M/s. MAI, M/s. RKTC, and M/s. Minocha Brothers, where penalties were duplicated for the firm and proprietor.

4. The advocate further argued against penalties imposed under various provisions of law, including Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that penalties under Section 11AC equaled the duty amount and found no justification for additional penalties under other provisions of law. As a result, penalties imposed under other provisions were deemed unsustainable and quashed for M/s. MMPL, M/s. MAI, and M/s. Minocha Brothers. The Tribunal upheld the penalties under Section 11AC and modified the order accordingly, finding no further grounds for interference.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in a comprehensive manner, preserving the legal terminology and significant aspects of the original text.