2012 (9) TMI 174 - AT - Central Excise

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 ... Non payment of duty - Held that:- Considering the statement of Accountant of the appellant wherein he has clearly admitted the five numbers of brown chits and details contained therein and that the bags mentioned in the brown chits were cleared without invoice and without payment of duty of Central Excise and the said statement has not been retracted by the appellant at any stage of adjudication or further, demand is hereby confirmed - as the appellant has paid the duty before issuance of the SCN, and there is no quantification of the interest, in that view the penalty is reduced to 25%. Issues:- Confirmation of demand of duty along with interest- Lack of details in quantifying duty- Reliance on statement recorded during investigation- Validity of impugned orderConfirmation 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.