2011 (7) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and interest - Seized - it has been established that the impugned goods have been cleared without payment of duty by the first appellant to the premises of the last two appellants - Find that the findings of the original authority are detailed the same take into account all the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and there are adequate reasons given for confirmation of the duty demanded along with interest - As such there is no case for reduction in the duty amount confirmed - However the claim made by the assessee regarding part payment of the duty amount requires to be considered and the same requires to be adjusted against the demand subject to verification. penalties - As regards the penalties imposed find that the statutory penalty equal to duty has been imposed on the appellant firm M/s Natraj Plast Industries Ltd - Considering the duty amount involved separate penalty imposed on the appellant.

Summary

Issues: Duty liability adjustment, Disputed duty liability, Penalty reduction

Duty liability adjustment:
The advocate for the appellants submitted that the duty liability in respect of the impugned goods found in the premises of the factory of the appellants and the job workers was not disputed, but the duty amount already paid should be adjusted against the demanded amount. The advocate also disputed the duty liability for goods seized from the premises, arguing that the Department had not conclusively proven that the goods were cleared without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that the findings of the original authority were detailed and considered all submissions, confirming the duty demanded along with interest. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the advocate's claim regarding part payment of the duty amount, directing it to be adjusted against the demand subject to verification.

Disputed duty liability:
The consultant for the appellants in another case pleaded for a reduction in penalties imposed, arguing that the penalties were disproportionate to the value of the seized goods. The Departmental Representative supported the penalties, stating that the impugned goods had been cleared without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that penalties imposed were equal in both cases but not proportionate to the value of the seized goods. It ordered a reduction in penalties for the second case to align with the lower value of the confiscated goods.

Penalty reduction:
The Tribunal upheld the duty amount confirmed, finding no case for reduction. However, it reduced penalties imposed on the appellants, considering the duty amount involved and the penalties already imposed on the appellant firm. The penalties were reduced to Rs.25,000 for the second appellant and Rs.15,000 for the fourth appellant. The redemption fine imposed was not further reduced as it had already been substantially reduced. In conclusion, one appeal was rejected, while adjustments were ordered for duty amounts paid, and penalties were reduced in other appeals based on the value of confiscated goods.