Tribunal Rules on Appeals by Goyal Energy & Steel and Deepak Agrawal

The tribunal dismissed the appeal of M/s Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and partly allowed the appeal of Shri Deepak Agrawal by reducing his penalty. The tribunal emphasized the importance of the admitted facts and voluntary payment of duty, which corroborated the clandestine activities and justified the imposition of penalties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Receipt of raw materials without payment of duty.
2. Clandestine manufacture and removal of final products.
3. Admissibility and reliability of evidence.
4. Imposition of penalties.
5. Limitation period for demand of duty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Receipt of Raw Materials Without Payment of Duty:
The appellants, M/s Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant No. 1) and Shri Deepak Agrawal (Appellant No. 2), were found to have received 266.890 MTs of sponge iron from M/s Indian Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. (ISPPL) without payment of Central Excise duty. This was corroborated by the statements of Shri Pankaj Jain, Director of ISPPL, and Shri Deepak Agrawal, Director of Appellant No. 1, both recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The statements were not retracted, and the appellants voluntarily paid the duty amounting to Rs. 9,02,374/-.

2. Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Final Products:
The appellants used the received sponge iron to manufacture 233.033 MTs of re-rolled products of iron and steel, which were then removed clandestinely without accounting for them in statutory records and without issuing invoices or paying the duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalties based on the evidence from the pen drive and ledger account recovered from ISPPL.

3. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:
The appellants contested the genuineness of the pen drive and ledger account, arguing that no direct evidence was found at their premises. However, the tribunal held that the statements of the directors and the voluntary payment of duty were sufficient evidence. The tribunal cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in CCE Vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd., stating that admitted facts need not be proved further.

4. Imposition of Penalties:
The adjudicating authority imposed an equivalent penalty on Appellant No. 1 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on Appellant No. 2 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. The tribunal upheld the penalty on Appellant No. 1 but reduced the penalty on Appellant No. 2 to Rs. 50,000/- considering his role in the evasion of duty.

5. Limitation Period for Demand of Duty:
The appellants argued that the demand was barred by limitation. However, the tribunal found that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act was applicable due to the suppression of facts and contravention of provisions with intent to evade duty.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the appeal of M/s Goyal Energy & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and partly allowed the appeal of Shri Deepak Agrawal by reducing his penalty. The tribunal emphasized the importance of the admitted facts and voluntary payment of duty, which corroborated the clandestine activities and justified the imposition of penalties.

---