9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 758 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty on the basis of documents found in investigation. - Demand of duty on the warehoused goods - Held that - On account of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of Excise duty and the demand has been confirmed without re-quantification with corroborative documents and during the course of re-quantification the authority has to correlate the documents. decided against Assessee. Regarding duty on warehoused goods. - held that - It is the duty of the department to prove that the transporter/warehouse owner had dealt with these goods knowing that the goods were non-duty paid. Department has failed to discharge this onus in this case. Mere allegation that the appellants had aided and abetted is not sufficient. decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Presented and Considered:
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter include:
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Clandestine Removal of Goods and Demand of Duty, Interest, and Penalty Legal Framework and Precedents: Under the Central Excise Act, 1944, excisable goods must be cleared only after payment of duty and issuance of proper excise invoices. Removal without payment or without proper documentation constitutes clandestine removal, attracting demand of duty under Section 11A(1), interest under Section 11AB, and penalty under Section 11AC. Confiscation of goods and related assets is governed by Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the appellants admitted to clearing goods without proper Central Excise documents and without payment of duty at the time of removal from the factory premises. The goods were packed and removed in HDPE bags with lot and serial numbers but without corresponding excise invoices at the time of clearance. The invoices were prepared only later at the warehouse premises. This practice was held to be a clear case of clandestine removal. Key Evidence and Findings: The investigation revealed that goods were cleared from the factory without excise invoices and duty payment. The seized documents, statements, and lorry receipts supported this finding. The appellants' own admissions and failure to produce proper documents at the time of interception were significant. The investigation also revealed that some goods were cleared on private documents without duty payment. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty, interest, and penalty on the clandestinely removed goods, confirming the adjudicating authority's order in this respect. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued accounting errors and sought re-verification of documents. The Tribunal agreed that re-quantification of demand was necessary due to discrepancies in the number of bags and weights, and remanded the matter for re-quantification. However, the core finding of clandestine removal was not disturbed. Conclusions: The clandestine removal was established, and the demand of duty and penalty was confirmed, subject to re-quantification on remand. 2. Confiscation of Goods and Vehicle Legal Framework: Confiscation of goods and conveyances used in evasion is provided under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules and Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. Court's Interpretation: The goods and vehicle were confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of fines. The Tribunal did not disturb the confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fines. Conclusions: Confiscation was upheld but redemption was permitted on payment of fines. 3. Liability of Family Firms and Associated Entities for Penalties Legal Framework: Section 209A of the Central Excise Rules imposes penalties on persons who aid or abet evasion of duty. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The family firms were found to be involved in clearance of goods without proper accounting and duty payment. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the investigation regarding excess sales over purchases by these firms and the lack of thorough verification by the department. The appellants contended these firms were independent and purchased yarn from the open market as well. Key Evidence and Findings: Statements of family members, seized documents, and purchase/sale records were examined. The department's failure to verify open market purchase invoices was noted. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-quantification and directed the adjudicating authority to verify purchase and sales records thoroughly before confirming demands and penalties on family firms. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants' contention of lack of proper investigation was accepted to the extent that re-verification was necessary. Conclusions: Penalties on family firms were set aside for re-examination and re-quantification. 4. Place of Removal and Inclusion of Transportation and Warehousing Charges in Assessable Value Legal Framework: Section 4(3)(b)(iii) of the Central Excise Act provides that the assessable value includes the price charged at the place of removal. The place of removal determines the point at which duty is payable and what costs are includable in valuation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Two scenarios were considered: (a) factory gate as place of removal, or (b) warehouse premises of M/s Nirmal Warehouse as place of removal. The Commissioner held that the place of removal was the warehouse. Since transportation and warehousing charges were collected separately from customers at the warehouse, these charges were includable in the assessable value. The appellants relied on a Supreme Court decision which held that where a uniform price including equalized freight is charged, transportation costs are not includable. The Tribunal distinguished that case on facts, noting that here, prices varied depending on place of delivery and transportation charges were separately collected. Key Evidence and Findings: It was admitted that no duty was paid at factory gate and invoices were issued only after clearance from warehouse. Transportation charges were collected directly from customers by the transporter and warehouse owner. Application of Law to Facts: Since the place of removal was held to be the warehouse, transportation and warehousing charges collected therefrom were correctly included in assessable value. Conclusions: The demand on account of under-valuation by excluding transportation and warehousing charges was rejected; the charges were includable and the demand was confirmed. 5. Penalties on Transporter and Warehouse Owner Legal Framework: Penalties under Section 209A of Central Excise Rules require proof that the party knowingly aided or abetted evasion of duty. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The transporter and warehouse owner recovered transportation and warehousing charges directly from customers and did not charge MMSL. Their statements indicated they acted on delivery orders from MMSL and had no written agreement. The Tribunal found no evidence that they had knowledge of evasion or acted with intent to aid evasion. Key Evidence and Findings: Statements of the transporter's owner showed lack of knowledge of evasion. The department failed to prove awareness or complicity. Application of Law to Facts: Mere allegation of aiding and abetting without evidence is insufficient to impose penalty. Conclusions: Penalties imposed on the transporter and warehouse owner were held unsustainable and were set aside. 6. Quantification of Demand and Need for Re-verification Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellants contended that the demand was confirmed without proper re-verification of lorry receipts, invoices, and stock registers, and that the department did not provide all relevant records during adjudication. The Tribunal agreed that discrepancies existed and directed remand for re-quantification after proper correlation of documents in presence of the appellants. Conclusions: Demand was set aside for re-quantification and re-verification of documents. Significant Holdings: "The duty of Central Excise is payable at the time of clearance of goods at the place of removal. It is also admitted fact that the appellants have not paid the duty or cleared goods without proper Central Excise invoice at factory gate. The ld. advocate also admitted that the invoice were issued only after the clearance of goods from the godown of M/s. Nirmal Warehouse." "In the absence of evidence to show that the transporter was aware that he was aiding and abetting evasion of Central Excise duty, penalty was not imposable." "The demand confirmed on account of clearances through family firms is set aside for requantification." "The Commissioner has held that place of removal is Nirmal Warehouse. The transportation cost upto the Nirmal Warehouse and stores charges charged by the Nirmal Warehouse are to be includable." "Mere allegation that the appellants had aided and abetted is not sufficient." Core Principles Established:
Final Determinations:
|
