Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 375 - AT - Central ExciseSuppression of production - Clandestine clearance of goods - Entry not recorded in RG-1 Register - Parallel invoices - Penalty under Rule 25 read with section 11AC - Held that:- So far as recovery of parallel invoices are concerned, that was undisputed to be belonging to the appellant. The pulpable plea of different hand-writing over the documents was not proved. When hand-writing experts known to law opined against the appellant, there was no necessity to rely upon any other expert, who was not recognised by law. Therefore, appellant’s plea of hand-writing experts opinion was not considered has no relevance when the concerned employees in their statement admitted to have knowledge about such incriminating evidence against the appellant. The parallel invoices not being found to be irrelevant and not liable to be discarded, exhibiting quantum of clearance mentioning the value thereon unaccounted, ld. adjudicating authority made correct evaluation of such evidence as unaccounted transactions on the relevant date and raised the demand thereon. - Adjudicating authority has worked out very clearly the loss of revenue with precision taking the aggregate value of 23 parallel invoices in the adjudication order. He has categorically recorded that the invoices were recovered from the factory and were prepared by employees of the appellant company, which was confirmed by them to have prepared the same. The appellant could not rule out unaccounted transactions exhibited by such invoices. The settled position of law being that possession follows the title, clandestine clearance of goods made through the invoices not finding place in statutory record were bound to be contributory to the evasion of duty of the aforesaid amount. Therefore, the demand relating to parallel invoices is confirmed. Slips recorded production made by appellant on different dates. Such fact was not rebutted showing irrelevancy thereof in evidence leading any evidence to the contrary. The appellant could not repel the allegation of Revenue that such slips resulted in evasion of duty to the above extent. Nothing could be either proved to demonstrate that those slips were not recovered from the factory nor there was absence of live link between the slips and the appellant. Also, contents of the slips showing the nature of goods manufactured by the appellants could not be ruled out. Investigation found that the slips were intimately connected with the activities of appellant and contents thereof demonstrating the clearances of excisable goods not finding place in the production register of appellant could not be ruled out by appellant. It was plain and simple case of deliberate omission of production figures appearing in the slips unrecorded in the statutory record resulting in evasion of duty. Appellant’s plea that those were not related to appellant failed to succeed when author of the slips confirmed that the goods appearing therein were being manufactured by appellant and duty thereon not paid. So far as penalty of ₹ 47,47,307/- imposed on the appellant M/s. Agmotex Ltd. is concerned, looking into the evasion caused making clearances unaccounted through parallel invoices, penalty of ₹ 18,17,159/- is confirmed and penalty of ₹ 29,30,148/- related to unaccounted clearance as was established by incriminating slips is also confirmed for no evidence came to record to prove irrelevancy thereof. Accordingly, aggregate penalty of ₹ 47,47,307/- is confirmed. - Decided against assesse. In adjudication, Shri Shishir Agarwal, Director and Rajiv Sharma, Manager have faced penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- and ₹ 1,00,000/- respectively under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It may be stated that without human intervention, no artificial jurisdiction person shall cause evasion. There is always human element involved in committing evasions. Therefore, both the appellants are liable to penalty for their involvement and intimate connection with the loss of Revenue caused. However, considering the quantum of penalty imposed on them as disproportionate and penalty of ₹ 47,47,307/- imposed on the appellant company is confirmed, penalty imposed on these persons is reduced. Accordingly, there shall be penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- on Shri Shishir Agarwal, Director and Rajiv Sharma, Manager respectively. - Decided partly in favour of appellants.
|