2011 (7) TMI 1128 - HC - Central Excise

Customs Tribunal Decision Upheld on Fabric Removal Duties and Penalties

The Bombay HC upheld the Customs Tribunal's decision on clandestine removal of fabrics, affirming duty and penalty demand. Appellant's appeal was ... Clandestine removal - statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - sustenance of duty demand and penalty on concurrent finding of fact - retraction in reply to show cause notice insufficient to negate earlier recorded statements - concurrent finding of fact by the Appellate TribunalClandestine removal - statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - sustenance of duty demand and penalty on concurrent finding of fact - retraction in reply to show cause notice insufficient to negate earlier recorded statements - Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the demand of duty and penalty on findings of clandestine removal based on recorded statements and seizure-related admissions - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found on facts that the appellant clandestinely removed fabrics without payment of duty and relied on recorded statements of the proprietor, his clerk and the buyer under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Those statements consistently identified the clandestine removal and quantified the goods; the clerk, who handled excise matters, gave uncontroverted quantitative details. The appellant's subsequent retraction appeared only in the reply to the show cause notice and did not outweigh the earlier recorded statements. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's concession that seized fabrics exceeded statutory records. On these factual findings the Tribunal sustained the duty demand and the penalty, and the High Court held that those concurrent findings of fact justified the Tribunal's conclusion. [Paras 1]Tribunal's sustenance of the duty demand and penalty on the found clandestine removal is justified and upheld.Concurrent finding of fact by the Appellate Tribunal - Whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration - HELD THAT: - Given that the determination turned on factual findings - consistent recorded statements, uncontroverted quantitative details by the clerk, the appellant's admission regarding excess seized stock, and the Tribunal's evaluation of retraction - the High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference with the Tribunal's factual conclusions. [Paras 2]No substantial question of law arises; appeal dismissed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the Appellate Tribunal's concurrent factual findings that clandestine removal occurred and that the demand of duty and penalty were justified are upheld, and no substantial question of law is held to arise. The Bombay High Court upheld the Customs Tribunal's decision of clandestine removal of fabrics by the appellant, leading to demand of duty and penalty. The appellant's appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.