Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 891 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Goods cleared without issuing invoices and CE duty was leviable on those goods - admission by the party itself - admissible evidences or not - extended period of limitation - penalties - HELD THAT:- From the records, it appears that investigations were carried out by the Department at the factory premises of the appellant where documents such as challans, registers etc. were recovered. On co-relating the goods cleared under various challans with the invoices, it was gathered that no invoices were issued in respect to the goods cleared under the said challans. It also did not show that they have been used for sending the material out of the factory for job work as they did not have any description of job worker or the nature of job work. Further, it was found that the appellant maintained two sets of outward registers, one with details of goods cleared under the invoices and the other under the cover of challans. Sh. Amit Rajput, Director of the unit in his voluntary statement under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 admitted that challans were cleared without issuing invoices and CE duty was leviable on those goods. In view of the specific admissions by Sh. Amit Rajput nothing further was required to be proved by the Department and also the recovery of challans during visit of factory clearly proves that goods so manufactured were clandestinely cleared from the factory under the guise of job work on which no Excise duty was paid. It is a settled principle of law that what is admitted by a party need not be proved. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Invoking the extended period of limitation as the appellant willfully and intentionally suppressed material facts of clandestinely manufacturing and clearing finished goods, without issuing proper invoices, without maintaining statutory records and without filing statutory returns so as to avoid the imposition of excise duty, the demand under the SCN is well within the time limit of five years under proviso to the then section 11A(1) now section 11A(4) of the CE Act, 1944. Penalties - HELD THAT:- On contravention of the provisions of the C E Act,1944 and the Rules made thereunder, the penalty under section 11AC is confirmed - Similarly, the personal penalty imposed upon Sh. Amit Rajput, Director of the unit under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 needs to be upheld as he was responsible for the clandestine manufacture and removal of goods as is evident from the documents recovered during the search which stands corroborated with his statements. That without his knowledge and active participation the goods could not have been clandestinely manufactured & cleared from the factory, since he being the director was responsible for the day to day affairs of his firm. He admitted the duty liability on the goods manufactured and cleared from his factory. Appeal dismissed.
|