1999 (10) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Evasion of central excise duty in respect of HDPE sacks under the garb of HDPE cut fabrics, confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, plea by Revenue regarding consideration of evidence, discrepancy in statements of customers, treatment of stitchers as independent manufacturers, appeal against the order, documents indicating manufacturing of stitched bags, request for remand by JDR, findings of fact by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad regarding the evasion of central excise duty involving HDPE sacks disguised as cut fabrics. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 32,650.50, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000, and a penalty of Rs. 5,000. The Revenue contended that voluminous evidence was not considered, leading to substantial relief on unsubstantiated grounds.

The main contention revolved around the discrepancy in statements of customers regarding the received goods, initially identified as stitched bags but later claimed to be cut fabrics. The adjudicating authority treated stitchers as independent manufacturers, except for one stitcher operating within the appellant's premises, where duty was demanded after combining clearances. The consultant acknowledged the lack of appeal against this order, indicating admission of liability.

The JDR highlighted various documents supporting the manufacturing and clearance of stitched bags by the appellants. However, the Tribunal found the clearances by independent stitchers not attributed to the appellants, as they were excise licensees conducting their own operations. Despite the JDR's request for remand to review additional documents, the Tribunal declined, noting that the adjudicating authority had already considered these documents and made a detailed discussion in the Order-in-Original.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that based on the facts and circumstances, there was no justification to disturb the adjudicating authority's findings of fact. No legal issue merited intervention, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The decision was made accordingly, upholding the original order.