1994 (6) TMI 113 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of 61,000 biris.
2. Demand of Central Excise duty on 3,85,16,000 biris.
3. Imposition of penalty on M/s. A.N. Guha & Co.

Summary:

1. Confiscation of 61,000 biris:
The Central Excise Officers seized 61,000 unbranded biris from the residential premises adjacent to the factory of M/s. A.N. Guha & Co. These biris were not accounted for in the prescribed register and were stored in an unapproved premises. The officers confiscated the biris u/r 9(2) read with Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 100/-. The Appellants contended that these biris were damaged and unfit for sale, kept to retrieve tobacco, and thus not liable for duty. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation, stating that the Appellants failed to prove their claim.

2. Demand of Central Excise duty on 3,85,16,000 biris:
The officers found discrepancies between the Octroi tax receipts and the transit notes, indicating that 3,85,16,000 biris were received and sold without payment of duty. The Collector confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,28,048.73 on 3,33,89,500 biris after accounting for reconciliations and miscalculations. The Appellants argued that the Octroi receipts were not reliable and that the entries in their RG 12B Register were based on transit notes. The Tribunal held that the Appellants failed to rebut the evidence of clandestine removal, as the Octroi receipts were in their name and found in their premises. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand.

3. Imposition of penalty on M/s. A.N. Guha & Co.:
A penalty of Rs. 6,000/- was imposed on the Appellants for violating Rules 9(1), 52A, 52, 94, 226, and 47 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the Appellants' actions amounted to wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the confiscation of 61,000 biris, the duty demand on 3,33,89,500 biris, and the imposition of penalty, stating that the clandestine removal was proved by the Department and the Appellants failed to rebut the same.