2000 (11) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Alleged clandestine removal of goods, demand of duty, imposition of personal penalty, discrepancies in invoices and transport documents, justification of penalties under Rule 209A.

Alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing branded Chewing Tobacco, were accused of clandestinely removing goods more than once on one invoice by showing different destinations in invoices and transport challans. The Revenue alleged that goods were removed to places midway between the consignee's place and the destination mentioned in the invoices, leading to a demand of duty and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and penalties, which was challenged by the appellants.

Discrepancies in Invoices and Transport Documents:
The Revenue's case was based on discrepancies between the destination shown in excise invoices and transport challans. While the invoices indicated delivery to Nepal, the transport documents showed destinations like Jaynagar or Sitamari. The appellants explained these differences citing commercial reasons, such as the transporter's location and ownership retention until payment. The Revenue contended that the goods were diverted to different destinations midway, using the same invoices for multiple transports.

Imposition of Penalties:
The Commissioner upheld the duty demand and imposed personal penalties under Section 11AC on the main appellant firm and individual partners. The appellants challenged the penalties, arguing that the Revenue failed to prove clandestine removal conclusively. The Tribunal reduced the main appellant's penalty but set aside penalties on individual partners due to lack of justification under Rule 209A.

In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the duty demand against the main appellant for alleged clandestine removal of goods, albeit reducing the penalty amount. The penalties imposed on individual partners were set aside due to insufficient justification under Rule 209A. The case highlighted the importance of maintaining consistency between invoices and transport documents to avoid suspicions of clandestine activities.