2015 (6) TMI 952 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Penalties for Duty Evasion by Directors & Company

M/s Santha Alloys India Pvt Ltd, C. Ramesh Kumar, C. Senthil Kumar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore

M/s Santha Alloys India Pvt Ltd, C. Ramesh Kumar, C. Senthil Kumar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - TMI Issues:1. Allegation of evasion of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Involvement of Directors in the evasion of duty.3. Reduction of penalty under Section 11AC for the appellant.Analysis:Issue 1: Allegation of evasion of duty and penalty under Section 11ACThe appellant vehemently opposed the adjudication, arguing that duty evasion cannot be presumed merely based on allegations of clandestine removal. They contended that duty should not be automatically levied, and penalty under Section 11AC should not apply. The Directors of the appellant-Company faced penalties, which the appellant argued were unjust since no incriminating documents implicating them were found during the investigation. The appellant also cited financial difficulties, stating that any pre-deposit direction would cause financial hardship.Issue 2: Involvement of Directors in the evasion of dutyThe investigation revealed various chits containing entries that directly indicated clearances of goods manufactured by the appellant. These entries pointed to the involvement of both the appellants and the buyers of the goods in question. The buyers did not deny the appellant's involvement in unaccounted clearances, serving as witnesses against the appellant. Despite the lack of evidence disproving ownership of the goods covered by the chits, the possession of these chits by the appellants implied their ownership, leading to legal consequences. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appellants liable for clandestine removal of goods and dismissed their appeal.Issue 3: Reduction of penalty under Section 11AC for the appellantThe appellant sought a reduction in the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, suggesting it be lowered to 25% of the duty element. However, the Tribunal noted that such concession is permissible under Section 11A(2) for cases of short-levy, short-paid, or erroneous refund within one year from the relevant date, provided the appellant demonstrates clean hands in determining the actual liability. Since the manufacturer appellant did not fully discharge the duty, leniency under the first proviso to Section 11A was not applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all three stay applications and appeals, upholding the penalties imposed on the Directors and the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.