1998 (1) TMI 340 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of seized excisable goods and truck.
2. Demand of Central Excise Duty based on electricity consumption.
3. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Summary:

1. Confiscation of Seized Excisable Goods and Truck:
The Collector held that the seized excisable goods weighing 14.030 MT and the truck used for transportation are liable to confiscation. The truck was intercepted carrying 14.030 MT of steel ingots, and the driver admitted to using the same gate pass for multiple consignments. The Managing Director admitted that no gate pass was issued for the seized goods. The Tribunal found that the goods were being clandestinely removed and upheld the confiscation of the goods and the truck, along with the imposition of penalties.

2. Demand of Central Excise Duty Based on Electricity Consumption:
The Collector confirmed a demand of Rs. 59,13,056.26 as Central Excise Duty based on the suppression of production and removal of steel ingots. The Department relied on the consumption of electricity as a basis for estimating production. Expert opinions indicated that the consumption of electricity for producing one MT of steel ingots ranged between 750 to 800 KWH units. The monthly production report for January 1990 showed that the appellants consumed 1764475 KWH units of electricity, indicating an average consumption of 851 units per MT. The Tribunal accepted this norm for calculating the suppressed production and upheld the demand.

3. Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed on M/s. Nagpal Steels Limited, its Managing Director, Director, and Driver. The Tribunal found the penalties justified given the gravity of the offense and the involvement of the company's management. The retraction of statements by the driver and supervisor was deemed an afterthought, and the original statements were considered accurate. The Tribunal upheld the penalties and the demand of duty on shortages.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the confiscation of goods and the truck, the demand of Central Excise Duty, and the imposition of penalties. The appeals were rejected.