2016 (3) TMI 802 - AT - Central Excise

Evasion of duty - voluntary statements making confessions - whether price charged was inclusive of duty.? - Held that - As find that the partners of the appellant had categorically admitted the impugned evasion of duty in their voluntary statements recorded on various dates. Their statements are also in conformity with the statements of Mr. Ajit Kumar, Dispatch Clerk and some buyers of the goods as well as some suppliers of the raw-material. These statements of the partners categorically and fully establish the impugned evasion. There is no allegation that the statements are not voluntary and they had never been retracted. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.I. Pavunny Vs. Asst. Collector, Cochin 1997 (2) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has held that confessional statement, if found voluntary, can form the sole basis for conviction . Needless to say that the vigour of evidence required in quasi-judicial proceedings is lower than the rigour required for conviction. As regards the contention that the amount should be treated as come duty price on the basis of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Delhi Vs.Maruti Udyog Ltd (2002 (2) TMI 101 - Supreme Court ), find that in that case the goods had been cleared against proper central excise invoices while in the instant case goods were cleared without. In the present case, the goods were cleared without issuing proper invoices and therefore it cannot be said that the price charged included central excise duty. In their statements, partners of the firm also did not claim that price charged was inclusive of duty. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming central excise duty demand, interest, and penalty.
- Allegations of clandestine clearances without payment of duty.
- Admissions by partners of the firm regarding duty evasion.
- Contention regarding treatment of amount as cum duty price.
- Sustainment of impugned order based on evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal that upheld an Order-in-Original confirming a demand for central excise duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 16,49,109. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electrical fittings under specific brand names, was accused of clearing goods without duty payment and proper accounting. Following a search at their premises, incriminating documents were found, and statements of the partners and a dispatch clerk were recorded, admitting to clandestine clearances without duty payment. Worksheets and evidence from suppliers and buyers corroborated the evasion, leading to the impugned demand and penalties upheld by the impugned order.

The appellant failed to appear during the proceedings, prompting the tribunal to proceed with the appeal on merits. The appellant argued that the demand was based on weak grounds, citing a Supreme Court judgment regarding cum duty price treatment. The Departmental Representative countered, emphasizing the partners' admissions and supporting statements from suppliers and buyers as grounds for sustaining the impugned order.

Upon considering both sides, the tribunal noted the partners' voluntary confessions, supported by other statements, as substantial evidence of the duty evasion. Citing legal precedents, the tribunal highlighted that voluntary confessions can form the basis for conviction in quasi-judicial proceedings. The tribunal differentiated the present case from the cited Supreme Court judgment, as goods were cleared without proper invoices, indicating duty evasion. As the partners did not claim the price included duty, the tribunal dismissed the appellant's contention regarding cum duty price treatment, concluding that the impugned order did not display any flaws warranting appellate intervention.

In light of the comprehensive analysis of the evidence and legal principles, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the sustainment of the impugned order confirming the central excise duty demand, interest, and penalty against the appellant.