Tribunal Upholds Penalties for Clandestine Goods Clearance

The Tribunal upheld the demands on Appellant number 1, M/s Shiva Steel Rolling Mills, for engaging in clandestine clearances of goods without duty payment, citing confessional statements and evidence supporting the activity. Appellant number 2, Mr. Pravesh Gautam, faced penalty imposition for receiving goods clandestinely from Appellant number 1, with the penalty amount reduced to Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the revenue, confirming the penalties on both appellants based on the evidence and statements presented, ultimately disposing of the appeals accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Clandestine clearances of goods without duty payment by Appellant number 1.
2. Liability of Appellant number 2 under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.

Analysis:
1. Clandestine Clearances by Appellant number 1:
The Tribunal noted that Appellant number 1, M/s Shiva Steel Rolling Mills, was unrepresented despite multiple listings and hearing notices sent to their last known address. The case involved whether Appellant number 1 was engaged in clandestine clearances of goods without duty payment. The Tribunal observed that there were confessional statements by responsible personnel of Appellant number 1 indicating a concerted effort in clearing goods clandestinely. The evidence included transaction books recovered from Appellant number 1, supporting the clandestine activity. Appellant number 1 contested the charges citing insufficient evidence and lack of incriminating documents recovered during investigations. However, a responsible person of Appellant number 1 admitted to manufacturing and clearing MS bars without duty payment. The evidence relied upon by the revenue was obtained from a broker dealing with Appellant number 1 for the clandestine sale of goods. The Tribunal upheld the order confirming demands on Appellant number 1, including interest and penalty, as the grounds of appeal were not contested, and no merit was found in their appeal.

2. Liability of Appellant number 2 under Rule 26:
Regarding Appellant number 2, Mr. Pravesh Gautam, the Tribunal observed that the revenue's case was based on various statements indicating that Appellant number 2 received and purchased goods clandestinely from Appellant number 1. Although Appellant number 2 retracted the statements, the Tribunal found that the penalty provisions were correctly invoked due to dealing with goods liable for confiscation. The arguments presented in defense were deemed ineffective, especially as Appellant number 1 admitted to clearing goods clandestinely to Appellant number 2. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition on Appellant number 2 but reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 25,000 due to being an individual. The reasoned order for penalty imposition was upheld, and no reason was found to set it aside.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the revenue's contentions against both Appellant number 1 and Appellant number 2 based on the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

---