2000 (1) TMI 391 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
- Double jeopardy claim based on earlier adjudication
- Allegation of misdeclaration and non-payment of duty on goods cleared under specific gate passes
- Discrepancy in duty payment evidence and bank deposits
- Interpretation of duty payment rules and precedents
- Justification of penalty and redemption fine

Double Jeopardy Claim:
The appellant argued that the current order, demanding duty on goods cleared under specific gate passes, amounts to double jeopardy as a similar matter was adjudicated by the Additional Collector earlier. However, the Tribunal rejected this claim, emphasizing that the earlier adjudication did not cover the gate passes in question. The Tribunal distinguished cases where second adjudication on identical grounds was struck down, highlighting that in this instance, the earlier proceedings did not address the goods cleared under the specific gate passes now under scrutiny.

Misdeclaration and Non-Payment Allegation:
The case involved an allegation of misdeclaration and non-payment of duty on goods cleared under certain gate passes. The appellant contended that duty had been paid, but the Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence presented. It noted that the duty paid evidence did not include the specific gate passes in question, leading to the conclusion that duty payment for those clearances was not adequately substantiated.

Discrepancy in Duty Payment Evidence and Bank Deposits:
The appellant claimed that duty had been properly deposited in the bank, but the Tribunal ruled that mere bank deposits did not constitute payment of duty as per the relevant rules. It highlighted the necessity of maintaining a current account with the Commissioner for duty payment and emphasized that failure to debit the PLA indicated an intention to evade duty, justifying the demand for duty payment and the imposed penalties.

Interpretation of Duty Payment Rules and Precedents:
The Tribunal analyzed relevant duty payment rules and precedents to determine the appellant's compliance. It differentiated cases where minor irregularities did not invite penalties from situations where clear intent to evade duty was evident. By referencing past judgments, the Tribunal justified the penalty and redemption fine imposed based on the appellant's failure to pay duty as required by the rules.

Justification of Penalty and Redemption Fine:
In light of the appellant's failure to pay duty as per the rules and the evident intention to evade duty, the Tribunal upheld the penalty and redemption fine imposed. It deemed the penalties justified and commensurate with the gravity of the offense, dismissing the appeal and affirming the order demanding duty payment and imposing penalties.