2001 (8) TMI 832 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty; Allegations of clandestine removal of polyester yarn without payment of duty; Denial of involvement by appellants in the alleged activities; Legal evidence and testimony; Prima facie case and balance of convenience.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty. The appellants, including a company and its directors and manager, were accused of receiving polyester yarn clandestinely and removing it without paying duty. The Commissioner confirmed duty demand and imposed penalties. The appellants denied involvement and contested the lack of legal evidence supporting the allegations. The Counsel argued that the impugned order was based on surmises and conjectures, lacking concrete proof. The SDR, however, supported the Commissioner's order.

Upon review, it was found that the raid at the supplier's premises yielded loose sheets with entries of polyester yarn supply to the appellants, but the key witness retracted his statement and was not available for cross-examination. No incriminating documents were recovered from the supplier's office, and no physical evidence of the yarn or manufactured products was found at the appellants' premises. The entries in the loose sheets did not definitively link the yarn supply to the appellants. The absence of corroborating evidence raised doubts about the Commissioner's findings.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellants presented a strong prima facie case due to the lack of substantial legal evidence against them. The balance of convenience favored the appellants as they faced duty demand and penalties without sufficient proof. Consequently, the Tribunal granted unconditional waiver of duty and penalty amounts for all four stay applications, staying the recovery until further proceedings. It was clarified that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the merits of the appeals, emphasizing the procedural nature of the waiver.

In summary, the judgment addresses the issues of legal evidence, prima facie case, and balance of convenience in the context of allegations of clandestine removal of polyester yarn. The decision highlights the importance of concrete proof and the need for a strong evidentiary basis to support duty demands and penalties. The Tribunal's ruling underscores the significance of fairness and due process in adjudicating such matters, ultimately granting the appellants relief based on the lack of compelling evidence against them.