2017 (6) TMI 995 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - under-invoicing of waste and scrap - Held that - The department has conducted investigations with regard to the bank account and found that there has been withdrawal of amount by these employees. All these would sufficiently prove the allegation raised in the show cause notice that the appellant has been under-invoicing the goods and receiving the consideration by way of cash, thus thereby not accounting the clearance of the goods - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Allegations of under-invoicing goods and undervaluing scrap resulting in unaccounted cash; Confirmation of duty demand and penalties by original authority and Commissioner (Appeals); Challenge before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing poly propylene woven sacks, was accused of under-invoicing goods supplied to a company (referred to as VVM) and undervaluing scrap sales, leading to unaccounted cash. A search was conducted based on this information, resulting in a show cause notice demanding duty payment of ?2,73,642 along with penalties. The original authority confirmed a reduced duty demand of ?2,20,322, along with penalties and personal penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), except for setting aside personal penalties. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal challenging the duty demand and penalties imposed.

2. The appellant did not appear but submitted written contentions arguing that the duty quantification lacked legal authority, relying on statements without supporting evidence, failure to reconcile accounts with cash collected, absence of under-invoicing evidence in maintained books, and improper investigation leading to assumptions. They contended that statements under the Income Tax Act are not applicable for other proceedings, citing relevant case laws. They claimed the show cause notice was based on presumptions and lacked proper investigation.

3. The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the proceedings.

4. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions.

5. The allegations against the appellant included under-invoicing goods to VVM with the involvement of a partner, under-invoicing scrap sales, and receiving unaccounted cash. Evidence revealed under-invoiced money received through bearer cheques issued to appellant's employees, with statements confirming the transactions. Investigations showed cash found during a search was from unaccounted scrap sales. The Tribunal found the evidence sufficient to support the under-invoicing allegations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit.

6. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, noting the Commissioner (Appeals) had already set aside personal penalties, providing sufficient benefit to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.