Duty-paid goods cannot be confiscated under Rule 25 when excise duty already paid despite invoice errors

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that goods cleared on payment of duty cannot be confiscated under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as this rule is subject to Section 11AC which requires non-payment of duty as a condition precedent. The tribunal found that incorrect mention of buyer names in invoices for duty-paid goods constitutes merely a procedural lapse, not grounds for confiscation. Appeals of manufacturing units and their directors/partners were allowed as penalties under Rules 25 and 26 could not be sustained when applicable duties were paid. The case was remanded for other appellants where clandestine removal without duty payment was alleged.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of Gutka by Yogesh.
2. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses by the Commissioner.
3. Imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Procedural lapses in invoicing by suppliers.
5. Applicability of Section 11AC in relation to penalties under Rule 25.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Clandestine Manufacture and Clearance of Gutka by Yogesh:

The primary issue revolves around the alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of Gutka by Yogesh under the brand name "GOA 1000." The department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that Yogesh clandestinely manufactured and cleared Gutka without payment of duty, based on the procurement of laminate packing pouches from Montage and Balaji. The demand for Central Excise Duty was substantial, amounting to Rs.156,80,70,098/- on 467,30,49,420 pouches of Gutka. The appellants argued that the receipt of such a large quantity of lamination packing pouches was not established, and the case for clandestine removal was not made out merely on the basis of alleged procurement of one raw material, without evidence of other raw materials, excess electricity consumption, transport, or receipt of payment.

2. Denial of Cross-Examination of Witnesses by the Commissioner:

A significant procedural issue was the denial of cross-examination of witnesses by the Commissioner. The appellants contended that the Commissioner allowed cross-examination of only 9 out of about 25 persons whose statements were relied upon, and only 2 deponents were actually cross-examined. The Commissioner justified this by stating that the allegations were based on documentary evidence and that none of the statements were retracted. However, the Tribunal found this approach to be in violation of the principles of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Andaman Timber Industries v CCE, which emphasized the importance of allowing cross-examination when statements form the basis of the order.

3. Imposition of Penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:

Penalties were imposed on various parties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 for procedural lapses and alleged involvement in the clandestine activities of Yogesh. The Tribunal noted that the goods cleared by the appellants were on payment of duty, and the non-mentioning of buyers' names in invoices was considered a procedural lapse. It was held that duty-paid goods cannot be confiscated under Rule 25, and penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 could not be sustained on these grounds.

4. Procedural Lapses in Invoicing by Suppliers:

The Commissioner imposed penalties on suppliers like Balaji, Montage, Arihant, and Sachin for not mentioning the actual recipient's name in the invoices, which was seen as a contravention of Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal found that since the goods were cleared on payment of duty, this was a procedural lapse and not sufficient grounds for penalties under Rule 25, which requires non-payment of duty as a condition.

5. Applicability of Section 11AC in Relation to Penalties under Rule 25:

The Tribunal highlighted that Rule 25 is subject to the provisions of Section 11AC, which deals with penalties for non-payment of duty due to fraud or suppression of facts. Since the goods were cleared on payment of duty, the conditions of Section 11AC were not met, and therefore, penalties under Rule 25 could not be imposed. This interpretation was supported by judgments from the Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court, which emphasized that the ingredients of Section 11AC must be satisfied for penalties under Rule 25.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal modified the impugned order, allowing the appeals of Montage, Balaji, Arihant, and Sachin and their directors/partners/authorized persons, while remanding the appeals of Yogesh and the rest of the appellants for fresh consideration. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross-examination, and clarified the conditions under which penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 can be imposed.

---