1992 (12) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Reception of additional evidence and additional grounds in a Misc. application.
- Appeal against duty and penalty imposed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
- Allegations of evasion of excise duty and circumvention by the appellant.
- Challenge to the findings of the adjudicating authority regarding the manufacturing and clearance of goods without payment of duty.
- Consideration of evidence, including seized documents and statements, to establish excise duty evasion.
- Rejection of the request for introducing additional evidence at a late stage.
- Reduction of penalty imposed while upholding the duty confirmed in the impugned order.

Analysis:
The case involved a Misc. application seeking to introduce additional evidence and grounds, related to an appeal against duty and penalty imposed on the appellant under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant, a small scale unit manufacturing electric wires and cables, was accused of evading excise duty. The authorities conducted a search, seizing goods and documents from various premises linked to the appellant. The appellant's proprietor admitted to purchasing goods from Delhi and supplying them under his brand name. The appellant contested the charges, arguing insufficient investigation by the Department and challenging the authenticity of seized documents. The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the appellant's transactions, concluding evasion of excise duty through bogus invoices and fabricated records.

The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's findings, emphasizing the appellant's evasion tactics, including issuing bogus gate passes and collecting excise duty without remitting it. The Tribunal rejected the request to introduce additional evidence belatedly, citing the principle that evidence not produced diligently earlier cannot be admitted later. While confirming the duty imposed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty considering the circumstances. The judgment highlighted the appellant's deliberate evasion efforts, supported by seized documents and statements, leading to the decision to uphold the duty but modify the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision affirmed the duty imposed on the appellant for excise duty evasion, rejecting the plea for additional evidence at a late stage. The judgment underscored the appellant's systematic circumvention of excise laws through fabricated records and evasion tactics, leading to the confirmation of duty with a reduced penalty.