2008 (8) TMI 622 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants Penalized for Evading Duty Using Polyester, Penalties Reduced, Confiscation Overturned

LD. TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT

LD. TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 210 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:1. Classification and use of polyester waste vs. polyester staple fibre.2. Evidentiary support for the Revenue's case.3. Applicability of the Tribunal's previous decision in a similar case.4. Limitation period for issuing the show cause notice.5. Penalties imposed on the appellants.Comprehensive, Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification and Use of Polyester Waste vs. Polyester Staple Fibre:The main issue was whether the appellant used polyester waste or polyester staple fibre in manufacturing yarn. The Commissioner found that the appellant was using polyester staple fibre under the guise of polyester waste. Statements from various managers and technical staff indicated that the so-called polyester waste was of variable quality and required additional processing, which the appellant did not perform. The price difference between polyester waste and polyester staple fibre was minimal, suggesting that the appellant was purchasing good quality fibre but declaring it as waste to evade duty.2. Evidentiary Support for the Revenue's Case:The Revenue's case was supported by various statements, test reports, and documents. Statements from the appellant's staff and purchasers confirmed that the yarn quality was identical, whether made from polyester waste or staple fibre. The test reports indicated that the goods received were of good quality staple fibre. The scrutiny of seized documents revealed that the goods were directly removed from the factory of M/s. MPPL to the appellant's factory without any intermediate processing, further supporting the Revenue's case.3. Applicability of the Tribunal's Previous Decision in a Similar Case:The appellant argued that the Tribunal's earlier decision in the case of M/s. RIL should apply, where it was held that the waste cleared by M/s. RIL was indeed waste. However, the Tribunal found that the present case had to be decided based on the evidence on record. The waste was not received directly from M/s. RIL but through intermediaries, and the price paid by the appellant was comparable to the price of good quality fibre, indicating that what was received was fibre and not waste.4. Limitation Period for Issuing the Show Cause Notice:The appellant contended that the show cause notice issued in 1996 for the period April 1992 to February 1995 was time-barred. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the drawing of samples and subsequent investigations took time, and the use of good quality fibre described as waste amounted to suppression and misstatement, justifying the invocation of the longer period of limitation.5. Penalties Imposed on the Appellants:The Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed a penalty of an identical amount on M/s. L.D. Textile Industries Ltd. The confiscation of plant, machinery, land, and building was set aside. Penalties of Rs. 2 crores each were imposed on the Chief Executive, General Manager (Works), and General Manager (Commercial). However, the Tribunal reduced these penalties to Rs. 20 lakhs each, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.Conclusion:The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand and penalties but set aside the confiscation of plant and machinery. The penalties on the individual appellants were reduced. The appeal was disposed of in this manner.