Tribunal upholds duty demand with interest, reduces penalty if paid early. Accountant's statement key.

The Tribunal upheld the order confirming a duty demand of Rs.1,97,698/- along with interest, which could be reduced to 25% if paid within 30 days. The appellant's Accountant's statement admitting to clearing goods without paying duty was deemed sufficient evidence, leading to the confirmation of the demand. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the lack of specific details in quantifying the duty, the Tribunal found the Accountant's statement credible and upheld the impugned order. The penalty was reduced to 25% due to the appellant's pre-Show Cause Notice duty payment.

---

---

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of duty along with interest
- Lack of details in quantifying duty
- Reliance on statement recorded during investigation
- Validity of impugned order

Confirmation of demand of duty along with interest:
The appellants appealed against the order confirming a duty demand of Rs.1,97,698/- along with interest, which could be reduced to 25% if paid within 30 days. The case arose from the discovery that the appellant was clearing goods without paying duty, supported by the recovery of brown chits for clearance without payment. A statement by the appellant's Accountant admitted to clearing goods without invoice or duty payment. The Tribunal upheld the demand, stating no further evidence was needed as the statement was not retracted, and the appellant had paid the duty before the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued. The penalty was reduced to 25%.

Lack of details in quantifying duty:
The appellant argued that while quantifying the duty, no specific details of the goods were provided to them. They contended that no corroborative evidence was presented. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision in a different case. However, the Tribunal found the statement by the appellant's Accountant admitting to clearing goods without payment of duty as sufficient evidence, rendering the case law cited by the appellant irrelevant. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on the statement and the lack of retraction by the appellant.

Reliance on statement recorded during investigation:
The appellant's Accountant's statement, made during an investigation on 9.1.2003, played a crucial role in the case. The Accountant admitted to clearing goods without paying duty, providing details of the transactions. The Tribunal emphasized the voluntary nature of the statement and its consistency throughout the proceedings. The Tribunal deemed this statement as substantial evidence, negating the need for additional proof to establish the duty evasion.

Validity of impugned order:
After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found no infirmity with the impugned order. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of the Accountant's statement, which remained unchallenged by the appellant. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the order confirming the duty demand but reduced the penalty to 25% due to the appellant's pre-SCN duty payment. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---