1998 (7) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Demand of Central Excise duty on marble tiles allegedly removed without payment, imposition of penalty, reliance on private record for evidence, admission of duty liability by the appellants, confirmation of penalty and demand amount, penal action under Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi stemmed from an Order-in-Original issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,45,075 on marble tiles purportedly removed without payment, with an additional penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the appellants. The case was built on a private register maintained by a Sorter, Thomas George, which was seized during a factory visit by Central Excise Officers. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter due to inadequacies in addressing the appellants' contentions. Upon re-adjudication, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) issued the impugned order. The appellants contended that the private record was for personal use, and all removals were covered by excise gate passes, except for self-admitted quantities without duty payment. The Director of the appellants' Company had acknowledged non-entry of some tiles in the RG-1 Register, leading to removal without duty payment. The appellants voluntarily debited Rs. 1,969 in their ledger account, further supporting the admission of duty liability.

The Tribunal noted that the private record lacked a systematic maintenance approach and did not provide substantial evidence of clandestine removals. The Revenue failed to present details on alleged removals. The appellants' admission of duty liability and partial payment were considered, as they operated under a self-removal procedure, signifying trust in the assesses. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty of Rs. 20,000 and the paid amount of Rs. 1,969, while setting aside the demand of Rs. 1,43,106. Notably, penal actions under various Central Excise Rules were proposed, with penalties not exceeding three times the value of contravened goods under Rule 173Q.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty and confirmed the paid duty amount, emphasizing the appellants' admission and the self-removal procedure's context. The decision considered the lack of substantiated allegations and the importance of trust in self-removal procedures. The appeal was disposed of based on the above considerations, addressing the demand, penalty, and relevant Central Excise Rules contraventions comprehensively.