1996 (2) TMI 232 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Demand of duty and confiscation of goods and truck.
2. Imposition of penalty on various appellants.
3. Validity of statements and evidence presented.
4. Clandestine removal of goods.

Summary:

1. Demand of Duty and Confiscation of Goods and Truck:
The officers of the Central Excise intercepted a truck on 27-6-1993, leading to the discovery of discrepancies in the transportation of M.S. Ingots. The truck driver, Mohd. Ikram, admitted to using the same gate pass for multiple consignments. The lower authority demanded a duty of Rs. 20,260/- from Aditya Steel Industries, confiscated 10.090 MTs of M.S. Ingots with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and confiscated the truck with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 8,000/-.

2. Imposition of Penalty:
Penalties were imposed as follows: Rs. 2,500/- on Aditya Steel Industries u/r 9(2), 52A, 173Q, and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; Rs. 2,000/- on Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills; and Rs. 1,000/- each on driver Mohd. Ikram, Lakhi Prasad, and R. Singh. The Tribunal upheld the penalties on Aditya Steel Industries, Mohd. Ikram, and Lakhi Prasad, but set aside the penalty on Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills, as penalties u/r 209A cannot be imposed on a partnership concern.

3. Validity of Statements and Evidence Presented:
The Tribunal found the statements of the driver and other individuals to be voluntary and corroborated by evidence. The driver's detailed account of the clandestine removal was supported by the statements of the factory manager and supervisor of Aditya Steel Industries. The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' claims of duress and inconsistencies in the statements.

4. Clandestine Removal of Goods:
The Tribunal concluded that there was clear evidence of the removal of 135 ingots twice using the same gate pass. However, the evidence for a third consignment was insufficient, and the benefit of doubt was given to the appellants. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties for the second consignment but did not demand duty for the alleged third consignment.

Conclusion:
The appeals of Lakhi Prasad, Raghuvir Singh, and Mohd. Ikram were dismissed. The appeal of Pioneer Steel Re-rolling Mills was allowed, and the appeal of Aditya Steel Industries was disposed of with modifications. The cross-objections were dismissed.