2017 (6) TMI 318 - AT - Central Excise

Existence of manufacturing facility or not - there is no evidence on record that Central Excise officers visited those premises and there is no evidence that there was no electricity connection there during the period prior to 1.8.2005 in the name of M/s Mittal Packers - validity if demand for the period prior to 1.8.2005 - Held that - As the duty has been confirmed for the period from 1.8.2005 to 29.3.2006, this demand is to be requantified by the original adjudicating authority for which the case is being remanded to him/her - the penalty imposed on the other appellant, Shri Sanjay Mittal also requires reduction accordingly - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against Central Excise duty demand, imposition of penalty on the appellant and remand for requantification of duty and penalty.

Analysis:
1. Central Excise Duty Demand: The appeal was against the confirmation of Central Excise duty of ?20,62,451/- along with interest and equivalent penalty against M/s Shakti Plastic Udyog. The officers found that goods produced by M/s Shakti Plastic Udyog were being dispatched on the invoices of M/s Mittal Packers, which did not have a manufacturing facility. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to sustain the demand for the period prior to 1.8.2005 against M/s Shakti Plastic Udyog. However, the demand for the period from 1.8.2005 to 29.3.2006 was confirmed along with interest against M/s Shakti Plastic Udyog based on evidence provided by Sri Gulfam Mittal.

2. Imposition of Penalty: A penalty of ?6 lakhs was imposed on Shri Sanjay Mittal, proprietor of M/s Mittal Packers. The Tribunal reduced this penalty to ?1 lakh as the duty was confirmed only for the period from 1.8.2005 to 29.3.2006. The penalty imposed by the impugned order was modified accordingly.

3. Remand for Requantification: The Tribunal remanded the matter for the adjudication of the limited issue of requantification of duty, interest, and equivalent penalty to the original adjudicating authority. The original adjudicating authority was directed to do the same within four months of the issue of the order, after giving the appellants an opportunity for a personal hearing and submission of documents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Central Excise duty demand for the period from 1.8.2005 to 29.3.2006 against M/s Shakti Plastic Udyog, reduced the penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Mittal, and remanded the case for requantification of duty and penalty to the original adjudicating authority.