2000 (8) TMI 345 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Demand of duty on clandestinely removed PVC pipes.
2. Disallowance of Modvat credit on inputs.
3. Confiscation of PVC pipes and raw materials.
4. Imposition of penalties on the company and individuals.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Limitation period for demand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand of Duty on Clandestinely Removed PVC Pipes:

The main issue was the confirmation of a demand amounting to Rs. 55,40,108/- for the alleged clandestine removal of PVC pipes by M/s. Super Polyplast (P) Limited. The demand was divided into two parts: Rs. 24,49,083/- based on private records for the period 10-3-1995 to 31-12-1995 (excluding August 1995), and Rs. 30,91,025/- for the period April 1994 to March 1995 and August 1995, calculated based on the alleged use of 60 parts of calcium carbonate. The Tribunal upheld the demand of Rs. 24,49,083/- as it was based on private records maintained by the assessee. However, the demand of Rs. 30,91,025/- was set aside due to insufficient evidence proving that the use of 60 parts of calcium carbonate increased the length of pipes.

2. Disallowance of Modvat Credit on Inputs:

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,83,096/-. This credit was taken on inputs that were not properly accounted for during physical verification. The Tribunal found that the inputs were not present at the time of verification, thus justifying the disallowance.

3. Confiscation of PVC Pipes and Raw Materials:

The Commissioner confiscated PVC pipes valued at Rs. 11,72,011/- and raw materials valued at Rs. 11,99,720/-, with an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and the redemption fine, finding the fine proportionate to the value of the goods.

4. Imposition of Penalties:

The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the company from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, considering only the demand of Rs. 24,49,083/- was sustainable. The penalty on Shri J.K. Agarwal, the Managing Director, was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000/-. Penalties on Shri T.R. Jain and Shri K.K. Gupta were set aside as no penalties were imposed on them in the original order, and proper procedure was not followed in imposing penalties during re-adjudication.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellant argued that the order was violative of the principles of natural justice as a copy of the letter from the Joint Director of BIS, New Delhi, was not supplied, and the request for cross-examination was not considered. The Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to uphold this argument, as the demand was primarily based on private records maintained by the assessee.

6. Limitation Period for Demand:

Regarding the limitation, the Tribunal noted that the presumption of no intent to evade payment of duty when there is a sufficient credit balance in the Modvat account does not apply to the demand based on private records for the period 10-3-1995 to 31-12-1995.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the demand of Rs. 24,49,083/- based on private records and disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 6,83,096/-. The confiscation of goods and the redemption fine were also upheld. The penalty on the company was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs, and the penalty on Shri J.K. Agarwal was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. Penalties on Shri T.R. Jain and Shri K.K. Gupta were set aside. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.