1998 (8) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against decision of Collector of Central Excise ordering payment of duty, property confiscation, and penalty.
2. Search conducted in appellant's premises leading to Show Cause Notice for duty payment.
3. Argument against impugned order based on Delhi High Court judgment and scribblings related to duty levy.
4. Evidence presented by Printing Master and Director supporting duty demand.
5. Adjudication on penalty, fine, and confiscation based on Delhi High Court ruling.
6. Confirmation of duty demand based on evidence provided, rejection of cross-examination argument.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the Collector's decision ordering duty payment, property confiscation, and penalty. The appellant challenged the decision in the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai.

2. A search conducted in the appellant's premises in July 1991 led to a Show Cause Notice for duty payment. Statements were recorded from the Printing Master and Director of the appellant. The adjudicating authority passed the impugned order, leading to the current appeal.

3. The appellant's counsel argued against the impugned order, citing a Delhi High Court judgment and questioning the basis of duty levy on certain scribblings. The counsel contended that the Collector did not properly appreciate the circumstances and the possibility of discrepancies in production figures.

4. The Department relied on statements by the Printing Master and Director to support the duty demand. The Printing Master's experience and responsibility for production were highlighted, with the Director confirming the accuracy of the statements. The Department argued against the necessity of cross-examination based on the nature of evidence presented.

5. The Tribunal accepted the plea regarding penalty and fine based on the Delhi High Court ruling, stating that the Department lacked the power to levy such sanctions for violations of the relevant Act.

6. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand after considering the evidence provided by the Printing Master and Director. The Tribunal rejected the argument regarding the necessity of cross-examination, noting that the appellant could have filed a retraction statement or additional evidence if discrepancies existed. The appeal was disposed of, confirming the duty demand but ruling in favor of the appellant on penalty and fine issues.