2001 (12) TMI 394 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty based on discrepancies in invoices.

The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing lubricating oils and chemical products, and one of their C & FA, M/s. Polycoaters India. The Anti-Evasion officers intercepted a truck loaded with goods manufactured by the appellants, suspected the correctness of invoices issued under Rules 52A and 57G, and seized the consignment. The Deputy Commissioner (Technical) adjudicated the show cause notice, noting discrepancies in pack sizes, valuation, and invoices, concluding that goods were cleared without duty payment. A duty demand of Rs. 82,240 and a penalty of Rs. 20,000 were imposed. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsuccessful, leading to the present appeal.

The appellants contended that discrepancies in pack sizes and valuation were due to differences in invoicing practices. They argued that there was no evidence of duty evasion, and minor discrepancies were adequately explained. The Tribunal noted that the charge of clandestine removal was based on minor invoice discrepancies, which the appellants clarified. The lack of concrete evidence supporting duty evasion, reliance on the driver's statement without verifying with C & F agents, and the driver's illiteracy raised doubts about the allegations. The Tribunal found the driver's statement insufficient for such a serious charge and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the alleged clandestine removal of goods without duty payment based on discrepancies in invoices. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of concrete evidence and proper verification before concluding serious charges like duty evasion. The decision highlighted the need for thorough investigation and reliable evidence to substantiate allegations of misconduct in excise matters.