1995 (11) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Central Excise duty evasion and contravention of Central Excise Rules.
2. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty.
3. Validity of show cause notice and time limitation for demand of duty.
4. Reliance on statements and evidence for establishing contravention.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Central Excise duty evasion and contravention of Central Excise Rules
The case involved the interception of a tempo loaded with Latex Foam Articles without proper documentation. The appellant, a manufacturer, was found to have exceeded the exemption limit for Central Excise duty and failed to obtain a license for manufacturing and clearing the goods after crossing the exemption limit. The Central Excise Officers seized goods and alleged contravention of various Central Excise Rules. The appellant was accused of not paying duty on clearances exceeding the exemption limit, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.

Issue 2: Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty
The adjudicating authority confirmed the charges against the appellant, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000, demanded duty of Rs. 2,49,175.72, and ordered the confiscation of goods found in stock and in transit. However, the appellant was given the option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine. The appellant contested the charges, claiming compliance with the exemption limit and challenging the evidence presented by the Department.

Issue 3: Validity of show cause notice and time limitation for demand of duty
The appellant argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond the permissible time limit and lacked mention of suppression of facts or Section 11A to invoke a larger period for demand. The Department contended that the notice was within the time limit and that the belated retracted statement of the proprietor was not admissible. The issue of time limitation for demanding duty was a crucial aspect of the case.

Issue 4: Reliance on statements and evidence for establishing contravention
Both parties presented arguments regarding the reliance on statements and evidence to establish the contravention of Central Excise Rules. The appellant disputed the evidence presented by the Department, claiming that the statements were obtained under duress and lacked corroboration. The Department defended its reliance on circumstantial evidence and private records maintained by the appellant to support its case.

In the final judgment, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant regarding compliance with the exemption limit under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the evidence and lack of substantial proof to establish the contravention conclusively. Consequently, the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and demand for duty were set aside in favor of the appellant.