1998 (12) TMI 562 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duty demand and penalties on M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. and others.
2. Dropping of demand for certain consignments by the Commissioner.
3. Allegations of clandestine removal and evasion of duty.
4. Validity of evidence and procedural fairness in the investigation.

Summary:

1. Duty Demand and Penalties:
The appeals arise from an order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 2,64,90,086.20 P. and imposing penalties on M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. and others. The Adjudicating authority imposed penalties of varying amounts on the co-noticees, including the Managing Director and several transport and marketing agencies.

2. Dropping of Demand for Certain Consignments:
The Revenue appealed against the dropping of demand for 26 truckloads covered by Annexure C and 42 truckloads covered by Annexure E. The Commissioner had confirmed the demand for 13 truckloads from Annexure C and 26 truckloads from Annexure E, while dropping the demand for the remaining consignments due to lack of evidence.

3. Allegations of Clandestine Removal and Evasion of Duty:
The case was based on intelligence that M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. engaged in large-scale evasion of Central Excise duty through clandestine clearances. The investigation revealed that Pan Masala was transported through M/s. East India Transport Agencies (EITA) and M/s. Rashtraco Freight Carriers (RFC) using a modus operandi of double transportation on the same consignment notes and cancellation of consignment notes after safe receipt of goods.

4. Validity of Evidence and Procedural Fairness:
The Tribunal found that the case relied heavily on transporter documents, which were not made available to the appellants and lacked direct evidence linking M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. to the alleged clandestine removal. The evidence was deemed insufficient as it did not establish the identity of the person who booked or received the consignments. The statements of transporters and other witnesses were not tested by cross-examination, weakening the case. The Tribunal cited previous case law emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence beyond mere suspicion to uphold charges of clandestine removal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the Department did not discharge the burden of proof for clandestine removal by M/s. Kothari Products Ltd. and set aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on all appellants. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected due to insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies in the investigation.