2003 (7) TMI 435 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Lower Duty Demand, Rejects Revenue Appeal for Enhancement

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus SWISSEN INTERSPACE LIMITED

The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to confirm duty demand at a lower amount, rejecting the Revenue's appeal for enhancement of duty ... Demand - Misdeclaration Issues:- Appeal for enhancement of duty demand and penalty by Revenue- Confirmation of duty demand at a lower amount by adjudicating authority- Allegation of misdeclaration of goods and duty evasion- Evidence evaluation by the Commissioner- Submission by the appellant regarding limited resources and production capacity- Revenue's claim of duty evasion without corroborative evidence- Commissioner's approach in determining duty demandIssue 1: Appeal for enhancement of duty demand and penalty by RevenueThe Revenue appealed seeking an increase in the duty demand to approximately Rs. 1.75 crore and the imposition of a suitable penalty. The appeal aimed to confirm the entire duty amount proposed in the show cause notice, arguing that the adjudicating authority erred in confirming duty demand at a lower amount despite upholding the charge of duty evasion.Issue 2: Confirmation of duty demand at a lower amount by adjudicating authorityThe duty demand was initially confirmed at a lower amount by the adjudicating authority, who observed discrepancies in the calculation of duty. The authority noted that genuine clearances of fully exempted goods should be deducted when calculating aggregate clearances, and duty slab rates were recalculated accordingly. The appellant contended that the entire duty demand should have been confirmed based on the established allegation of duty evasion.Issue 3: Allegation of misdeclaration of goods and duty evasionThe Commissioner upheld the charge of misdeclaring dutiable furniture as exempted Window Shutters, leading to duty evasion. However, the evidence on record was deemed insufficient to confirm the entire duty demand raised in the show cause notice. The Commissioner carefully evaluated the evidence for each supply, limiting the duty demand to instances with corroborative evidence of misdeclaration.Issue 4: Evidence evaluation by the CommissionerThe Commissioner thoroughly examined the evidence before determining the amount of duty evaded. The appellant raised objections to the quantification of duty demand, highlighting their limited resources and production capacity to question the feasibility of the alleged production quantity. The Commissioner's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence available.Issue 5: Revenue's claim of duty evasion without corroborative evidenceThe Revenue contended that all clearances of Window Shutters should be considered as clearances of dutiable furniture once the modus operandi of duty evasion was established. However, the Tribunal found this claim to be unsubstantiated, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to link clearances to dutiable goods.Issue 6: Commissioner's approach in determining duty demandThe Tribunal supported the Commissioner's approach, noting that the duty demand was appropriately limited to cases where there was supporting evidence of misdeclaration. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's evaluation of the evidence and decision to restrict the duty demand was justified, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.