Dismissed

M/S National Conduit Pipes v. Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2010CEA/45/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Central Excise Appeal No. 45 of 2010, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Tribunal's order confirming duty demand and equal penalty under Section 11AC for clandestine removal of goods, upholding the impugned decision.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Tribunal allowing duty demand and penalty were upheld.

M/S National Conduit Pipes Vs Commissioner of… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2010

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2010 Date of Decision : 5.3.2010

¶5

M/s National Conduit Pipes ............................................ Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh ................ Respondent

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar

¶9

Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

¶11

The Assessee has filed the present Appeal assailing the Order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘the Tribunal’) dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure A- 3) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. The Assessee-Appellant has raised following questions of law:

¶12

a) WHETHER penalty under Section 11AC is sustainable when

¶13

there is no specific finding of fraud, suppression of facts or

¶14

misstatement of facts with intent to evade payment of duty?

¶15

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2010

¶16

[ 2 ]

¶17

b) WHETHER demand of duty can be confirmed only on the basis of documents recovered from third party (here, the ICCs of the Punjab Govt.) in the absence of any corroborative evidence?

¶18

C) WHETHER demand of duty can be confirmed only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without leading any evidence to rebut the appellant’s claim that their unit was working in a single shift and could not have produced the quantity of goods alleged to have been produced?

¶19

Briefly the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ERW Pipes. Respondent initiated an investigation against the Appellant and after completing investigation issued a Show Cause Notice alleging clearance of goods without payment of duty. The Respondent confirmed the demand of Rs. 17,79,094/- and further imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.

¶20

The Appellant filed an Appeal before the Tribunal impugning the Order-in-Original passed by Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal has dismissed Appeal of the Appellant holding, inter-alia, that invoices recovered from ICC and invoices generated in the computer belonging

¶21

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2010 [ 3 ]

¶22

to Appellant are identical, Serial Number and even the time of preparation of both the invoices is same but the quantity recorded in statutory record is small in comparison to quantity recorded at ICC, the invoices were admittedly pre-authenticated by Sham Lal, the claim that invoices were filled by their drivers is not acceptable, the Appellant followed unusual circuitous and suspicious procedure of receiving money.

¶23

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal shows that the clearances covered by the 62 invoices relate to clandestine removal by the Appellant firm. The Commissioner has passed a very detailed order upholding the allegation of clandestine removal of ERW pipes during theperiod from 31.8.2000 to 18.10.2000 and the demand of Rs.17,79,094.00 along with interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act has been confirmed.

¶24

In view of the findings of fact recorded by the authorities under the Central Excise Act, the penalty under Section 11AC has rightly been imposed. There was ample evidence on record before imposing the penalty. The above findings of the Tribunal are purely findings of fact and no substantial question of law warranting the interference by this Court arises. Resultantly, all the questions posed in this Appeal are

¶25

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2010

¶26

[ 4 ]

¶27

answered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

¶28

The Appeal is dismissed and the orders passed by the Tribunal

¶29

are upheld.

¶30

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE

¶31

( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) JUDGE

¶32

5.3.2010 rupi

M/S National Conduit Pipes v. Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S National Conduit Pipes v. Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs M/S Adhunik Alloys Limited

Janak Steel Tubes Ltd., Hissar Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak

Commissioner of Central Excise Commissio Vs M/S Creative Dyeing and Printing Mills

Commissioner, Cec Jalandhar Vs M/S Jct (Sfd ) Ltd. Hoshiarpur

M/S Sanjeev Oil Mills Phillaur Vs State of Punjab

State of Haryana Vs M/S.Swastik Metal Works, Jagad