2000 (3) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upheld Penalty & Duty on Fabric Clearance; Dismissed Appeal Against Revenue

The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original imposing penalty and confirming duty on the appellant for clearance of processed fabrics without duty payment, ... Clandestine removal - Adjudication - Prosecution - Evidence - Statements Issues involved:The appeal against Order-in-Original imposing penalty and confirming duty. Charges include clearance of processed fabrics without duty payment, misdeclaration of processing nature, undervaluation, and misdeclaration of yarn counts and fabric width.Charge 1:- Appellant's advocate argues lack of opportunity for cross-examination of exporters and employee.- Department failed to correlate letterhead bills to specific consignments.Charge 2:- Advocate highlights lack of opportunity to cross-examine exporters.- Exporters' statements crucial for upholding the charge.Charge 3:- Advocate emphasizes lack of cross-examination of relevant parties.- Statements of parties involved in processing disputed.Charge 4:- Similar defense presented by advocate for lack of proper duty payment.Charge 5:- Advocate mentions contradictions in statements of relevant parties.- Allegations of misdeclaration of yarn counts and fabric width.Advocate's submissions:- Lack of cross-examination opportunities.- Exceeded authority of signatory.- Previous court prosecution failure.- Non-invocable extended period.- Cites relevant case laws for defense.Department's submissions:- Documents show discrepancies in fabric processing.- Exporters' statements damaging for the case.- Statements of exporters support the charges.- Legal significance of non-availability for cross-examination discussed.Final Decision:- Tribunal considers preponderance of probability for Revenue to sustain allegations.- Appellants' acquittal in court not hindrance for Tribunal's assessment.- Physical control not sufficient defense against evasion.- Non-availability of witnesses for cross-examination not fatal flaw.- Revenue's evidence based on seized documents and customer depositions.- Lack of retraction of statements by witnesses strengthens Revenue's case.- Tribunal dismisses the appeal, finding Revenue's position established.