Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 690 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - consignments of grey fabrics - demand - seizure 9933.75 mtrs. of processed fabrics valued at ₹ 5,96,025/- under the reasonable belief that the same were offending in nature and liable for confiscation, since the same were manufactured out of the unaccounted grey fabrics and kept unaccounted in RG-1 register in the factory with an intention to remove the same without the cover of Central Excise invoice(s) and without payment of Central Excise duty. Held that: - there are sufficient incriminating evidences available on the record to sustain the demand of duty of Central Excise of ₹ 1,54,87,744/- against the appellant –assessee M/s RKSM. The argument of the assessee-appellant that they have inflated their production figures of receipt of grey fabric to avail bank loan facility for replacing old machinery of the factory does not carry sufficient force as there is no evidence to corroborate the same. On the other hand, there are enough corroborative evidences to prove that the appellant-assessee namely M/s RKSM procured extra grey fabrics and clandestinely manufactured and removed the processed fabrics from their factory - demand upheld. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - considering the suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty it cannot be said that show cause notice was to be issued within one year from the relevant date. The period involved is from April, 2002 onwards and demand has been issued within the five year period from the relevant date as per the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, it cannot be said that on this count that the demand is not recoverable from the assessee-appellant. Penalty on 4 companies - Held that: - Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944) is not imposed on a company but only on a person - penalty imposed on these four companies is hereby dropped. Penalty on proprietorship concerns being on higher side, were reduced. Appeal dismissed - decided partly in favor of appellant, as regards penalty.
|