Page 102 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

324 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

sis of some ‘loose sheets’ recovered from the premises of the Assessee and that
the same requires corroboration, which is not there in the instant case.
8. The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Revenue/
Department seeks to support the finding and reasoning, stating that it has been
rendered on the basis of legally acceptable evidence on record and that the in-
criminating circumstances brought on record have not been successfully rebutted
by the Assessee in any manner. It is also pointed out that the statements were
given by the witnesses, including the Director of the Appellant-Company volun-
tarily and at no point of time, was it effectively challenged or rebutted. The judi-
cial precedents sought to be relied on by the Appellant are stated as not applica-
ble and that the concurrent finding rendered by the Adjudicating Officer, the
Appellate Authority and also by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference,
as no substantial question of law is involved, as envisaged under Section 35G of
the Act, 1944.
9. Going by the materials on record and as discussed above, there were
two sets of proceedings. The first one is with regard to the imposition of duty,
penalty and interest upon the Appellant/Assessee, and the second one, imposing
a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- upon the Director of the Appellant-Company. It is also
an undisputed fact that the Director of the Company had conceded the liability
to satisfy the duty and accordingly, the duty to an extent of Rs. 21,59,770/- with
Education Cess of Rs. 43,195/- was remitted voluntarily, before adjudication.
However, referring to the conscious design to defraud the Revenue by way of
clandestine removal of the goods without raising invoices and suffering excise
duty, it was held as with the knowledge and involvement of the Director and
accordingly, he was inflicted with penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- as mentioned above;
which made the Director also to file an appeal (Appeal No. E/1651/2008) before
the Tribunal. Both these appeals were considered together by the Tribunal and a
common order was passed on 20-3-2015, whereby the appeal (E/1650/2008) pre-
ferred by the Appellant-Company was dismissed; whereas the appeal (E-
1651/2008) preferred by the Director of the Appellant-Company was partly al-
lowed, modifying the quantum of penalty by reducing it from Rs. 5,00,000/- to
Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is stated that no further challenge has been raised by the Direc-
tor. The matter has become final and the penalty imposed on the Director is re-
portedly satisfied.
10. The common finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal (ulti-
mately leading to dismissal of the appeal filed by the Assessee-Company) stands
in fact in respect of the appeal preferred by the Director of the Company as Ap-
peal No. E/1651/2008, though the quantum of penalty was reduced from Rs.
5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Since no appeal has been filed against the said find-
ing and reasoning in the connected Appeal No. E/1651/2008, the present appeal
filed by the Appellant/Assessee Company in isolation cannot tilt the balance.
11. With regard to the merit of the appeal, it is to be noted that in the
course of inspection conducted on 4-10-2006, various incriminating materials
were retrieved from the premises of the Appellant-Assessee and the physical
verification of the stock reflected a shortage of 2.580 MT of sponge iron, which is
not disputed. This led to further scrutiny and the investigating team collected
more materials to assess the situation, as the stock register was maintained only
up to 30-9-2006. The said team had also recovered some ‘loose sheets’ from the
factory which related to loading invoices and gate passes, showing removal of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  102