2000 (7) TMI 726 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the confirmation of duty demand based on discrepancies between annual financial accounts and statutory records, imposition of personal penalty, allegations of clandestine removal, and the applicability of the period of limitation.

Confirmation of Duty Demand:
The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand against the appellants based on discrepancies between the figures in the annual financial accounts and the RT-12 returns. The show cause notice alleged clandestine removal, leading to the demand of duty and imposition of a personal penalty.

Contentions and Explanations:
The appellants explained that the differences in figures were due to the method of compilation by the PPC department, differences in recording despatches, time discrepancies in clearance records, and variations in the weight calculations for different products like CR coils. They argued that the discrepancies did not indicate clandestine activities but were a result of legitimate operational processes.

Adjudication and Findings:
The adjudicating authority rejected the appellants' contentions and attributed the differences to clandestine removal. However, the appellate tribunal agreed with the appellants' arguments, stating that the burden of proving clandestine activities rested with the Revenue. The tribunal found that the appellants had satisfactorily explained the discrepancies and that there was no evidence of excess clearances without duty payment.

Decision and Ruling:
The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the confirmation of duty demand was not justified. They also agreed that the demand was barred by limitation, as the show cause notice was issued after the circulation of the annual financial accounts. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants.