Tribunal upholds clandestine tile clearance charge, penalties adjusted. Evidence supports decision.

The Tribunal upheld the charge of clandestine clearance of glazed tiles by the appellants during 1996-1997. The case was remanded for recomputation of duty demand. The penalty under Section 11AC/Rule 173Q on the company was upheld, while the penalty on its director was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000. The evidence, including loading slips and statements, supported the charge of clandestine clearance, leading to the rejection of appeals and affirmation of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) decision.

---

---

Issues: Clandestine clearance of glazed tiles, recomputation of duty demand, penalty under Section 11AC/Rule 173Q, reduction of penalty on director.

In this case, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the charge of clandestine clearance of glazed tiles by the appellants during the period from 1996 to 1997. The case was remanded for recomputation of duty demand based on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision on cum-duty price. The penalty imposed under Section 11AC/Rule 173Q on the assessee company was upheld, while the penalty on its director was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000.

The charge of clandestine clearance was supported by loading slips recovered from transporters' premises, indicating goods manufactured by the appellants were loaded on trucks without payment of duty for 18 loading slips. Central Excise bills and invoices were issued for only 15 transport loading slips. C.P. Sarodia, Director of the Company, admitted to clearing goods without payment of duty and accepted duty liability. The material evidence, including statements from transporters and the director, remained unretracted, reinforcing the charge of clandestine clearance. Despite a conflicting notarised affidavit from a transport agent in 2001, the initial statement from 1998 was considered valid evidence. The Director's statement also remained unchallenged.

Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, concluding that the charge of clandestine clearance was substantiated. Therefore, the appeals were rejected, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

---