Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 565 - AT - Central ExciseDuty evasion - Whether or not the appellant collected in the name of excise duty any amount from their buyers which they failed to deposit to the Government - Held that:- The plea of the appellant is that in all inclusive price purchase order they have only charged concessional rate of excise duty which they have deposited with the Government. However, the facts of the case as revealed from the records indicate that the rate mentioned in the purchase order is per piece price + Central Excise duty of 10% or 13%. - The preparation of invoices in two sets with different details of assessable value and Central Excise duty for the same clearance was admitted by Shri D.K. Mattoo, Partner of the appellant firm. These details were elaborated in the impugned order-in-appeal also. The appellant s plea that preparation of different sets of original duplicate and triplicate or quatriplicate is only a procedural lapse is not at all tenable. The single clearance document having different factual details in original and triplicate cannot be considered as procedural lapse. The idea behind such act is to represent the price and Central Excise duty differently to the buyer. This is further corroborated by the fact that the appellant were also supplying oil filters to M/s Escorts Ltd. (CTD Division, Faridabad) who were availing Modvat credit and in that case, the appellant raise invoices in one set only giving all particulars correctly. The facts as narrated clearly establish that the appellant did collect amounts representing Central Excise duty and retained the same. As such we find that the same is to be paid to the credit of the Central Government in terms of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is apparent that the appellant made documentation deliberately to this end and as such are liable for penalty under Rule 173Q. Regarding confiscation of the goods loaded into tempo, we find the same was in the factory premises and the confiscation was apparently ordered on the grounds of incomplete particulars in the records and discrepancy between the copies of invoice. We find since the goods are still in the factory premises and the documentation were required to be completed at the time of clearances, there is no sufficient cause to order the confiscation of said goods. Accordingly, we set aside that portion of impugned order regarding confiscation of goods. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|