2004 (96) ECC 449 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

New Delhi -- Bench-NB(SM)

S.S. Kang, Member (J)

Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd. & Ors

Versus

CCE, Kanpur

Appeal No. 2836/2003-NB(S)
Appeal No. 2837/2003-NB-S
Appeal No. 2873/2003-NB-S

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 06-CE/APPL/KNP/2002 dated 20.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Kanpur]

Final Order A/1251-53/04/NB(SM), dated 31.8.2004,
Certified on 29.9.2004

Confiscation & Penalty

Evasion of duty -- Goods were seized on 30.9.2000 and the goods were covered under only two Challans issued by M/s. Maharani Traders no duty paying documents showing clearance of goods were produced by the truck driver. The contention of the appellant is that goods were clearing on payment of duty and necessary invoices were prepared -- No merit in the contention of the appellants that the goods were cleared on payment of duty and duty paying documents were cleared at the time of payment of duty. The circumstances shows that the documents were prepared subsequently to show payment of duty as the goods were seized by the Revenue Authority -- No merit in appeals.

[Para 7]

Appeal dismissed

PRESENT :

Shri Ashtosh Agarwal, Adv. for the appellant.

Shri V. Valte, SDR for the respondent.

Per : S.S. Kang

Heard both sides.

2. Appellants filled these appeals against the imposition of penalties of Rs. 30,000 on M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd., penalty of Rs. 15,000 on Shri Dheer Singh, Authorised Signatory of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd. and Rs. 25,000 on Shri Saurav Jain, Director of M/s Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.9.2000, the Revenue Officers confiscated two trucks. The trucks were loaded with MS Ingots manufactured by M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd. and goods were covered under two Challans issued by the M/s. Maharani Traders. Subsequently, the appellants produced the invoices showing payment of duty.

4. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and imposed the penalties.

5. The contention of the appellants is that the impugned goods were cleared on payment of duty and invoices were prepared showing the payment of duty. However, these cannot be issued on the same date as their authorized signatory has to go to visit the Temple. As the goods were cleared on payment of duty, therefore, the appellants are not liable for any penalty.

6. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods were seized on 30.9.2000, and the appellants failed to produced any duty paying documents under which the goods are cleared to M/s. Maharani Traders. The proprietor of M/s. Maharani Traders Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma in his statement admitted that original buyers copy and Duplicate Transport copy of the invoices covering the seized goods were given to him at the evening of 2.10.2000, by the person of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd. He also admitted that Challans were issued on the direction of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd. In these circumstances the contention of the Revenue is that appellants cleared the goods without payment of duty and subsequently prepared the goods and tried to cover their evasion.

7. I find that in this case the goods were seized on 30.9.2000 and the goods were covered under only two Challans issued by M/s. Maharani Traders no duty paying documents showing clearance of goods were produced by the truck driver. The contention of the appellant is that goods were clearing on payment of duty and necessary invoices were prepared. I find no merit in this argument and the proprietor of M/s. Maharani Traders Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma in his statement specifically mentioned that invoices are covering the consignment in dispute were received at the evening of 2.10.2000 through a person of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd. Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma also mentioned in his statement that he issued Challans at the direction of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the contention of the appellants that the goods were cleared on payment of duty and duty paying documents were cleared at the time of payment of duty. The circumstances shows that the documents were prepared subsequently to show payment of duty as the goods were seized by the Revenue Authority. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeals. The appeals are dismissed.

……………………………..