1995 (2) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on alleged suppressed production and clandestine removal of video magnetic tapes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arising from an order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 3,82,13,593.13 on alleged suppressed production and clandestine removal of video magnetic tapes. Penalties were imposed on the applicant company and its directors. The main contentions included the maintenance of statutory records, regular duty payment, and discrepancies in production figures leading to suppressed production allegations.

2. The applicant's counsel argued that the discrepancies in production figures were due to rejection at the packing stage, which was not accounted for in the statutory records. They highlighted the lack of approval for wastage norms despite a high rejection rate and emphasized the discrepancies in production figures recorded in Quality Control sheets and note books. The defense of rejection at the packing stage was raised early in the proceedings, and physical verification of rejected goods was suggested.

3. Regarding the Swastik duplicate note books, the counsel contended that they were not authorized by management and were maintained by employees for personal use. Errors in the calculation of suppressed production quantity were pointed out, challenging the method used for calculation. The counsel requested a waiver of pre-deposit and a remand for fresh decision considering the errors and lack of physical verification of rejected goods.

4. The JCDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order but acknowledged the applicant's requests for wastage norms fixation and physical verification of rejected goods. Considering the apparent errors and the need for a fresh decision, the JCDR had no objection to remand.

5. The Tribunal acknowledged the necessity of physical verification of rejected goods, the lack of fixed wastage norms, and errors in the calculation of suppressed production quantity. They agreed with the applicant's counsel that the method of average percentage was not appropriate for determining suppressed production. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement, stayed recovery, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider all evidence, including physical verification, and provide the applicants with an opportunity to be heard before passing fresh orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of a thorough reconsideration of the case based on the evidence and issues highlighted during the proceedings.