2017 (1) TMI 1853 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Granted: Duty demand, confiscation, penalties modified. Clarity on liabilities & legal provisions.

M/s. Volant Textiles Mills Ltd & Jam Shri Ranjitsinghji Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III

M/s. Volant Textiles Mills Ltd & Jam Shri Ranjitsinghji Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III - 2017 (349) E.L.T. 639 ... Issues:1. Duty demand on alleged clandestine removal of goods.2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine.3. Personal penalties imposed under Rule 209A.Analysis:Issue 1: Duty Demand on Alleged Clandestine Removal of GoodsThe case involved the appellant, a composite mill, supplying goods to another company without payment of duty or issuing invoices. The Anti Evasion wing discovered this practice, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand and confiscation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, penalties, and confiscation. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld most aspects, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued against the duty demand, citing CT 3 certificate submission and retracted statements. The Tribunal considered the evidence, including admissions and corroborating statements. It upheld the duty demand for past clearances, reducing the penalty in line with the revised duty amount.Issue 2: Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption FineRegarding the confiscation and redemption fine, the appellant contested the legality based on rule omissions and ownership of seized goods. The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions and found the confiscation under Rule 173Q invalid due to rule omission at the time of the show cause notice. It also clarified the ownership of seized goods, reducing the redemption fine accordingly to reflect the appellant's liability accurately.Issue 3: Personal Penalties Imposed under Rule 209AThe penalties imposed on individuals under Rule 209A were challenged, with the Tribunal considering the evidence and arguments. It upheld some penalties while setting aside others based on the involvement and retracted statements of the individuals. The Tribunal's decision balanced the culpability of each party involved, ensuring fairness in the imposition of penalties.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the duty demand, confiscation, and penalties based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal provisions. The judgment clarified the liabilities of the appellant and individuals involved, ensuring a just outcome in line with the applicable laws and precedents.