2014 (3) TMI 877 - AT - Central Excise

Evasion of duty - Movement of the goods covered by parallel invoices - Held that - The manner how transactions have been made proved oblique motive and connivance of the buyer respondent. The respondent was one of the beneficiary of clandestinely removed goods by manufacturer. Secrecy hides conspiracy and ill design of committer comes to see the light when that is unearthed. An offender voluntarily reveals secrecy rarely. But generally that is demonstrated by governing facts and attendant circumstances of the case. The goods escaping duty from the end of the manufacturer causing evasion is bound to escape in the hands of buyer being unaccounted. If evasion is permitted to perpetuate that shall be bonus to evaders and economy shall be shacked. Therefore, adjudication sustains in so far as levy of penalty on the respondent is concerned - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Fraudulent evasion of duty through parallel invoices, clandestine removal of goods, imposition of penalty on the beneficiary, exoneration by the Commissioner (Appeals), evidentiary scrutiny, modus operandi of the manufacturer, connivance of the buyer, binding effect of previous tribunal's order, levy of penalty upheld.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the fraudulent evasion of duty through the issuance of parallel invoices by Surya Cotspin Ltd., leading to the clandestine removal of goods and imposition of penalties on the beneficiaries involved. The respondent was found to be one of the beneficiaries of the fraud, as evidenced by the movement of goods covered by parallel invoices, supported by Octroi receipts issued by the Municipality. The lack of production of original invoices and Octroi receipts by the respondent weakened their defense against the allegations.

2. Revenue presented evidence indicating that Surya Cotspin Ltd. clandestinely removed a significant quantity of cotton yarn, resulting in duty evasion. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the production quantities before and after the probe, showcasing the modus operandi of the manufacturer in suppressing production to evade duty. The interception of goods covered by specific invoices by Sales Tax authorities further substantiated the clandestine removal.

3. The Revenue contended that Surya Cotspin Ltd. orchestrated a systematic fraud against them by issuing parallel invoices and destroying the originals to avoid detection. The involvement of the director and another individual from the company in providing false evidence highlighted the deliberate nature of the fraud.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) exonerated the respondent from the penalty without adequately considering the gravity of the situation and crucial evidence on record. The appellate authority's reliance on a Sales Tax Tribunal's order and doubts regarding the authenticity of parallel invoices were deemed insufficient. The failure to analyze the production figures and the unexplained increase in production post-investigation raised questions about the exoneration.

5. The judgment emphasized the importance of strict proof in criminal proceedings but acknowledged that evidence demonstrating probability is adequate for drawing inferences in fiscal matters. The connivance of the buyer, including the respondent, in the fraudulent scheme was established, leading to the conclusion that penalties were necessary to deter such evasion and protect the economy.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties on the respondent, emphasizing the need to prevent evasion from both manufacturers and buyers. The judgment highlighted the significance of maintaining proper records and scrutinizing connected cases to prevent piecemeal disposal and discourage evaders from benefiting.