1998 (6) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of duty and penalties demanded from the assessee based on recovered note books containing details of excisable goods cleared without payment of duty.

Analysis:
The judgment involves 13 applications seeking waiver of duty and penalties totaling approximately Rs. 91.62 lacs demanded from the assessee. The duty was demanded following an investigation into note books recovered from the factory of the assessee, which allegedly contained details of excisable goods cleared without payment of duty. The Commissioner found that these goods were cleared in nil duty gate passes by mislabeling them as exempted ball point pen tips. The applicants argue that the records were maintained by a part-time employee who denied that the goods were non-duty paid. The Commissioner's order heavily relied on this employee's statement, which the applicants claim is unsubstantiated. They have already deposited Rs. 50.00 lacs and seek waiver of the remaining duty and penalty due to lack of evidence proving non-payment of duty, as required by Tribunal decisions.

Analysis:
One of the applicants was absent and unrepresented, while others argued that there was no material in the notice for proposed penalties or any findings in the Commissioner's order. They claimed innocence as buyers unaware of any duty evasion. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative argued that the employee responsible for the note book entries admitted they related to non-duty paid goods, and buyers confirmed receiving goods without duty payment. The Representative opposed the waiver of duty and penalties.

Analysis:
The Tribunal found the issues arguable, emphasizing the need to examine the significance of the recovered note book entries and the employee's statement, along with his subsequent retraction. Considering that over 50% of the duty demand had already been deposited, the Tribunal decided to waive the remaining duty and penalty. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the absence of any discussion in the Commissioner's order regarding arguments raised by other applicants, leading to a prima facie finding of non-speaking orders justifying the waiver of deposits for these applicants.