1994 (6) TMI 79 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged evasion of duty based on false bilties and raw material discrepancies.
- Imposition of penalties on all the appellants.
- Discrepancies in raw material quantities and cement stock.
- Clandestine removal of non-duty paid cement.
- Reliability of evidence from third-party documents and statements.
- Validity of penalties imposed on the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved appeals arising from a common Order-in-Original issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, concerning alleged evasion of duty and penalties on multiple appellants. The case primarily revolved around the clandestine removal of cement, discrepancies in raw material quantities, and the imposition of penalties.

The first issue addressed was the alleged evasion of duty, amounting to Rs. 6,99,251.92, based on false bilties recovered from the premises of the first appellant and discrepancies in raw material accounts. The Collector confirmed the duty and imposed penalties on all the appellants. The appellants contested the case, claiming it was based on assumptions and inferences, challenging the reliability of third-party documents and statements.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including seized bilties and statements, indicating a modus operandi for clandestine removal of cement. The excess raw materials found in private accounts, unaccounted gunny bags, and shortage of cement supported the Revenue's case. The Tribunal rejected the argument of bias against the first appellant and upheld the Collector's findings regarding non-duty paid cement removal.

Regarding penalties, the Tribunal reduced the duty demand to 3901.196 MT of cement and adjusted penalties accordingly. The penalty on the first appellant was reduced to Rs. 65,000, while penalties on other appellants were set aside due to lack of direct evidence under Rule 229(A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand on the reduced quantity of cement, adjusted penalties, and set aside penalties on certain appellants due to insufficient evidence. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence, statutory accounts, and the need to establish clandestine removal based on concrete evidence rather than assumptions.