1991 (10) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority in light of the Collector (Appeals) order.
2. Allegations of duty evasion, fraud, and penalty imposition.
3. Legal objection regarding the validity of the show cause notice.
4. Failure to co-relate transport receipts with duty paying documents.
5. Evidence presented by both parties and the decision of the tribunal.

Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
The appeal challenged an order confirming a demand for duty evasion and imposing a penalty. The Collector (Appeals) had directed the Deputy Collector to transfer the case for further adjudication. The legal objection raised questioned the validity of initiating fresh proceedings based on the same show cause notice. The tribunal clarified that the direction to "transfer" the case by the Collector (Appeals) did not annul the entire proceeding but required compliance with statutory requirements. The tribunal rejected the objection, emphasizing the need for the show cause notice to be transferred for adjudication as per the Amending Act.

Allegations of Duty Evasion and Penalty Imposition:
The case involved allegations of duty evasion related to the removal of paper and paper boards without payment of duty. The Deputy Collector had initially directed duty recovery and imposed a penalty, which was challenged in the appeal. The Additional Collector, in the impugned order, dropped the demand for seven transport receipts but upheld it for three receipts, demanding Rs. 4908.29 as duty and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2000 under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules.

Legal Objection and Validity of Show Cause Notice:
The appellants argued that the original show cause notice became non-existent when the order of the adjudicating authority was set aside by the Collector (Appeals). They contended that initiating fresh proceedings on the same notice was against legal principles. However, the tribunal clarified that the direction to transfer the case did not nullify the show cause notice, as it needed to be transferred for adjudication under the amended law. The objection was deemed unsustainable and rejected.

Failure to Co-relate Transport Receipts with Duty Paying Documents:
The appellants failed to provide evidence to co-relate the transport receipts with duty paying documents, leading to the demand for duty. The tribunal noted that no rebuttal evidence was presented to substantiate the diversion of consignments to a third party without proper documentation. The lack of evidence from the appellants and failure to prove facts within their special knowledge led to the rejection of their plea.

Evidence and Decision of the Tribunal:
The tribunal reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, highlighting the lack of evidence from the appellants to counter the allegations of duty evasion. The tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the findings of the adjudicating authority based on the evidence provided. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to lack merit and was rejected by the tribunal.