Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2002 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (2) TMI 687 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Alleged clandestine removal of goods exceeding exemption limit - Calculation of estimated production based on statements - Confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition Analysis: 1. Alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods Exceeding Exemption Limit: - The appellants were manufacturing cleansing and washing powder under small scale exemption notification. - Central Excise Officers found 568 bags of powder in stock during a visit, leading to suspicions of clandestine removal. - Lack of immediate production records raised concerns, but records were later produced with entries of the bags. 2. Calculation of Estimated Production Based on Statements: - Statements of the Proprietor and Labour-in-Charge were crucial in estimating production. - Revenue calculated production based on Labour-in-Charge's statement, suspecting excess clearances beyond exemption limit. - Show cause notices were issued for duty demand and penalty imposition, confirmed by Joint Commissioner and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Confirmation of Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition: - Appellants argued that the Revenue's case relied solely on the Labour-in-Charge's statement, who had limited tenure. - Appellants contended that the charges of clandestine removal required substantial evidence, which was lacking. - The Revenue pointed to the presence of 568 bags during the visit as evidence of clandestine activities. - The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the statements and lack of substantial evidence to support the Revenue's claims. 4. Judgment: - The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of clandestine activities by the appellants. - Lack of consistent worker numbers, machine capacity details, and absence of concrete proof weakened the Revenue's case. - Non-production of records by the appellants, though suspicious, was not substantial evidence of wrongdoing. - The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants and granting consequential relief.
|