1994 (9) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on decorative laminated top units (DLTUs) and steel furniture without payment of Excise duty.
2. Contention regarding the manufacturing process and sourcing of components.
3. Burden of proof for clandestine removal of steel furniture.
4. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to appeals challenging a duty demand on decorative laminated top units (DLTUs) and steel furniture without payment of Excise duty. The Adjudicating authority rejected the appellants' contention that they were not clearing fully manufactured units but only purchasing components from specific manufacturers. The appellants were found to be engaged in the manufacture of complete steel table units by assembling laminated top units with other parts. The models consisted of decorative laminated tops of different sizes, top frames, U frame rounds, and footrest rounds.

2. Witness statements from the fitting and packing supervisor detailed the manufacturing process of DLTUs, confirming that the units consisted of various parts assembled together. The statements also corroborated that the decorative laminated top units were packed in corrugated boxes after the fitting work was completed. The evidence presented during the inspection of the factory further supported the sourcing of components from specific manufacturers.

3. The judgment addresses the burden of proof for the clandestine removal of steel furniture, particularly focusing on the existence of the suppliers from whom the furniture components were allegedly purchased. The adjudicating authority's conclusion that the appellants created fictitious suppliers was challenged based on the lack of concrete evidence. The burden of proof regarding the manufacture and removal of locker units and drawer units was deemed unsatisfactorily discharged by the department.

4. Penalties were imposed on the appellants for the confirmed charge of manufacturing and clandestine removal of decorative laminated top units without payment of duty. The penalty on the first appellant company was reduced due to the unsustainable demand on steel furniture. The second appellant director's penalty was upheld based on his involvement in the clandestine activities, with a reduction in the penalty amount. The judgment confirmed the impugned orders with modifications in the quantum of penalties imposed on the appellants.

Overall, the judgment upholds the duty demand on decorative laminated top units, dismisses the demand on steel furniture due to lack of evidence, and addresses the imposition of penalties on the appellants based on their involvement in the manufacturing and removal activities.