1996 (6) TMI 260 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty
- Imposition of personal penalty
- Allegations of suppression of production and clearance without payment of duty
- Validity of statements recorded under duress
- Reliability of evidence from recovered pocket diary

Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty:
The appellants challenged the order of the Collector, Central Excise confirming the demand of Rs.73,072 and imposing a personal penalty of Rs.15,000. The Central Excise officers found discrepancies in the production records of marble slabs at the factory, leading to the discovery that 6051.480 sq. meters of marble slabs involving Central Excise duty were not recorded in the RG-1 register. Statements from key individuals confirmed the suppression of production and clearance without payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued, and after due process, the lower authorities confirmed the duty demand and penalty.

Validity of statements recorded under duress:
The appellants contended that the statements of key individuals admitting to the suppression of production were recorded under duress. However, the complaint filed later did not constitute a retraction as the individuals were not under arrest or custody at the time of filing. The statements were considered in light of the entries in the recovered pocket diary, which were corroborated by some entries in the RG-1 register. The diary was recognized by a director of the company, further strengthening its evidentiary value.

Reliability of evidence from recovered pocket diary:
The appellants argued that the pocket diary recovered did not pertain to the factory's production records but was personal. However, the entries in the diary matched some entries in the official register. Statements from the individuals involved confirmed that the diary accurately reflected the production and clearance of marble slabs. The Tribunal found the diary to be a reliable source of evidence regarding the suppressed production.

Conclusion:
After considering all evidence and arguments, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, confirming the demand for duty and imposition of the penalty. The Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed suppressed production, failed to record it in the RG-1 register, and clandestinely removed excess production without paying the required duty. The authenticity of the statements and the reliability of the evidence from the recovered pocket diary led to the rejection of the appeal.