2018 (8) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of personal penalties - clandestine removal of goods - it was contended on behalf of appellant that there was no evidence except in the form of un-related hand written loose papers and computer printouts, the said papers were not at all resumed from the appellant s factory and the same has been stated in Para 36C(8) of grounds of appeal - also, it was contended that Revenue did not submit any evidence to prove the authenticity of said loose papers and also failed to trace and examine the author of said hand written loose papers. Held that - The contentions of learned counsel for the manufacturer-appellant and appellants other than Revenue are sustainable in law - personal penalties imposed are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
- Central Excise duty demand on shortages detected during stock taking
- Central Excise duty demand on alleged clandestine removal of goods
- Undervaluation of goods sold and evasion of Central Excise Duty
- Short payment of Central Excise duty
- Demand on unaccounted manufactured and cleared goods
- Imposition of personal penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Admissibility of evidence and cross-examination
- Limitation period for the show cause notice

Central Excise Duty Demand on Shortages Detected During Stock Taking:
The case involved appeals arising from an Order-in-Original confirming Central Excise duty demands on shortages of MS Ingots and MS Bars detected during stock taking. The appellants were called to show cause for the shortages and subsequent demands. The Original Authority confirmed the demands, leading to appeals before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the manufacturer-appellant argued that the evidence considered for confirming the demands did not meet the criteria established by previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal found the contentions of the appellants to be legally sustainable and allowed the appeals.

Central Excise Duty Demand on Alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods:
The appeals also addressed Central Excise duty demands related to alleged clandestine removal of goods. The counsel for the manufacturer-appellant contended that the evidence used to confirm these demands did not meet the necessary criteria as laid down by previous Tribunal rulings. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants' arguments and allowed their appeals while dismissing the appeal filed by Revenue.

Undervaluation of Goods Sold and Evasion of Central Excise Duty:
The case involved allegations of undervaluation of goods sold to a trading company, leading to evasion of Central Excise Duty. The demands were based on discrepancies in values mentioned in invoices and other papers. The counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence used for confirming these demands was insufficient and lacked authenticity. They also raised issues regarding the admissibility of evidence and cross-examination. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments and allowed their appeals.

Imposition of Personal Penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
Personal penalties were imposed on individuals under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants challenged these penalties, and the Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, allowed the appeals filed by the manufacturer-appellant and others on whom personal penalties were imposed.

Admissibility of Evidence and Cross-Examination:
The admissibility of evidence, including hand-written slips and computer printouts, was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellants raised concerns about the authenticity and source of the documents used as evidence. They argued that certain evidence was not admissible as it was not recovered from the appellant's premises and the authors were not available for cross-examination. The Tribunal considered these arguments and found in favor of the appellants.

Limitation Period for the Show Cause Notice:
One of the issues raised was the limitation period for the show cause notice. The appellants contended that the show cause notice was hit by limitation. While this issue was not elaborated upon in detail, it was likely a contributing factor in the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals filed by the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the various issues addressed, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decisions on each issue.

← Previous Next →