2013 (11) TMI 1423 - AT - Central Excise

Loose documents and registers maintained - Waiver of Pre-deposit of duty Penalty under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 r.w. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Private Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules,2002 Held that - These statements clearly indicate that the documents recovered from the premises of Shri Sureka were geneuine and reflect the true entries of receipt of raw materials and dispatches of finished goods by the Applicants payment made towards receipt of un-accounted raw materials and the accounted receipts as well - Prima-facie, the applicants could not able to make out a case for full waiver of pre-deposit - the issue involved relates to appreciation of evidences produced by both sides, which can be taken up at the time of final disposal of Appeals - assessee directed to deposit 25% of the duty as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
Waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty under Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the consideration of applications seeking waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty imposed on a company and its director under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The case originated from a search conducted at the premises of another company, leading to the recovery of incriminating documents from the residence of an individual associated with the applicant company. The duty quantification was based on these recovered documents, reflecting unaccounted receipts of raw materials and dispatch of finished goods. The applicants contested the findings, arguing that the records were not retrieved from their factory or office, and the director did not admit to any clandestine removal of goods. The investigation primarily relied on unaccounted sponge iron receipts from various suppliers, which were deemed insufficient to support the alleged clearance of goods without duty payment.

The Revenue, on the contrary, supported the adjudicating authority's findings, emphasizing that the recovered documents were crucial in quantifying the duty liability. They highlighted the intelligence indicating the supply of sponge iron without duty payment, with the recovered records linking the receipt and dispatch of goods. Statements from involved parties authenticated the documents, reinforcing their validity and accuracy in reflecting the company's operations. The director admitted to maintaining the records, further strengthening the Revenue's case.

Upon reviewing the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, the Tribunal observed that the documents recovered from the individual's residence were genuine and accurately portrayed the receipt and dispatch of goods by the applicants. The adjudicating authority noted the company's payments to the supplier for both accounted and unaccounted raw materials, indicating some acknowledgment of irregularities. The Tribunal acknowledged the complexity of the case, involving the assessment of evidence and the exercise of discretion in granting waivers. Considering legal principles, precedents, and the interest of revenue, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit 25% of the confirmed duty within a specified period, with the remaining amounts waived and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the evidentiary aspects, the credibility of recovered documents, parties' statements, payment acknowledgments, and the application of legal principles in determining the waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act. The decision reflects a balanced approach, considering the complexities of the case and upholding the interest of revenue while allowing for a partial waiver based on the presented facts and legal precedents.