2020 (6) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Upheld Confiscation & Penalties for Clandestine Removal of Goods

M/s. All True Components Versus The Principal Commissioner Central GST North Delhi,

M/s. All True Components Versus The Principal Commissioner Central GST North Delhi, - TMI Issues Involved:- Confiscation of goods inside factory and shop premises- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty- Allegation of clandestine removal of LED lights, bulbs, and panels- Failure to obtain Central Excise Registration- Violation of Central Excise Act and Rules- Applicability of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act- Intent to avoid tax liability- Payment of demanded duty- Judicial review of the impugned orderAnalysis:Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Fine and Penalty:The case involved the confirmation of confiscation of goods inside the factory and shop premises, along with the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The appellant challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 60/CE/DLH/2018, which confirmed the confiscation and penalties but reduced the amounts. The appellant argued that all confiscated goods were acknowledged in their records, but not considered by the authorities. The appellant contended that there was no intent to remove goods without paying duty, and penalties were unjustified. However, the department maintained that the appellant knowingly engaged in clandestine removal of excisable goods, justifying the confiscation and penalties.Allegation of Clandestine Removal and Violation of Rules:The department alleged that the appellant was involved in the clandestine removal of LED lights, bulbs, and panels without following due process or paying Central Excise Duty. The appellant was accused of violating various provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules. The raid conducted on the premises revealed unaccounted finished goods and raw materials, leading to the confiscation and penalty proceedings.Failure to Obtain Central Excise Registration and Tax Liability:One crucial aspect of the case was the appellant's failure to obtain Central Excise Registration despite manufacturing excisable goods. The appellant was found to be manufacturing various LED products without proper registration, indicating an intent to avoid tax liability. The absence of registration was considered a violation of excise rules and a clear indication of non-compliance.Applicability of Section 11AC and Intent to Avoid Tax Liability:The judgment discussed the applicability of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the requirement of mens rea or intent to avoid tax liability. The appellant's knowledge of the excisable nature of the goods and failure to obtain necessary exemptions or registrations demonstrated an intent to evade tax obligations. The absence of registration was deemed a deliberate attempt to circumvent tax responsibilities.Payment of Demanded Duty and Judicial Review:The appellant had paid the duty demanded in a subsequent show-cause notice, leading to the conclusion of that matter. However, the current show-cause notice focused on the violation of mandatory duties related to registration and clandestine removal. The judgment upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to confirm the confiscation and penalties, citing the distinct nature of the violations and the lack of double jeopardy concerns. The judicial review found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and its implications.