1995 (3) TMI 260 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Central Excise duty evasion on pre-recorded video cassettes, breach of Central Excise rules, cross-examination request denial, sufficiency of evidence, confirmation of duty demand, confiscation order, penalty imposition.

Central Excise Duty Evasion: The appellant firm, licensed to manufacture blank video cassettes, was found with pre-recorded cassettes bearing film names and 'Super' labels, along with video cassette recording equipment in the factory. Seized cassettes and statements indicated production and clearance without duty payment. Show cause notices were issued for duty recovery, confiscation, and penalties. The Additional Collector confirmed duty demand, ordered confiscation with redemption option, and imposed a penalty on the proprietor.

Breach of Central Excise Rules: The appellant argued recording was to test purchased recorders, fearing breach of trust with film-makers. Claimed no clearance of pre-recorded cassettes, unfinished state of seized cassettes, and lack of essential U-Matic cassettes for master copies. Request for cross-examination of a witness was denied, alleging denial of natural justice.

Cross-Examination Request Denial: The appellant sought to cross-examine a witness, but the denial was justified as the witness was a co-noticee, preventing self-incrimination. The appellant was given an opportunity to question the witness, ensuring no failure of natural justice.

Sufficiency of Evidence: The presence of numerous VCRs, 'Super' labeled cassettes in factory and shop, employee statements, and unchallenged allegations supported duty evasion findings. Lack of U-Matic cassettes did not disprove manufacturing, as duplication was possible with available equipment.

Confirmation of Duty Demand, Confiscation, and Penalty: The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, confiscation order, and penalty imposition, deeming them proportional to the offense. Lack of evidence to refute allegations, unexplained circumstances, and supporting statements led to the rejection of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the Additional Collector's order, confirming duty demand, confiscation, and penalty, based on the evidence and findings presented, rejecting the appellant's arguments and appeal.