1986 (10) TMI 114 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include discrepancies in invoices leading to exceeding the exemption limit, reliance on a Supreme Court judgment, allegations of non-accountal of goods, differences in value of goods due to packing, reliance on Trade Advice and judicial decisions, lack of evidence for clandestine removal of goods, dispute over assessable value due to packing, and imposition of penalty.

Discrepancies in Invoices and Exemption Limit:
The appellant was found preparing two sets of invoices with discrepancies in identity of buyers, quantity, and value of goods, exceeding the exemption limit of Rs. 5 lakhs under Notification No. 71/78. The department also alleged charging higher prices than approved.

Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment and Disallowed Submissions:
The appellant's advocate sought to rely on a Supreme Court judgment but was disallowed from submitting additional written arguments without permission or filing any new grounds of appeal.

Allegations of Non-Accountal of Goods:
The advocate argued that the department lacked evidence of additional unaccounted goods beyond excise records, and parties contacted denied receiving goods under parallel invoices.

Differences in Value Due to Packing:
The appellant contended that differences in value were due to secondary packing at customer request, not part of assessable value as per Trade Advice 5/68.

Lack of Evidence for Clandestine Removal:
The department's case of clandestine removal lacked tangible evidence, based on surmises and unwarranted assumptions, as per appellant's citation of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. case.

Dispute Over Assessable Value Due to Packing:
The department argued that packing cost should be part of assessable value, but the appellant cited Central Board instructions that certain packing should not be included.

Imposition of Penalty:
The penalty of Rs. 20,000 was deemed unjustified and set aside based on the findings in the case.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant, highlighting the discrepancies in invoices, lack of evidence for clandestine removal, and the dispute over assessable value due to packing, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.