2004 (3) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Allegation of manufacturing and clearing diesel engines without duty payment; Penalties imposed on manufacturer and dealers; Evidence based on documents from cooperative agricultural banks; Lack of physical verification by Revenue Authority; Cross-examination of bank officers denied; Discrepancies in statements of dealers; Comparison with previous Tribunal judgment.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against an adjudication order where duty and penalties were confirmed on the manufacturer for manufacturing and clearing diesel engines without payment of duty. The Revenue Authority relied on documents from cooperative agricultural banks and statements of employees to establish that more engines were purchased by farmers than shown in the manufacturer's records. However, no physical verification was conducted by the Revenue Authority, and the documents from banks were not provided to the manufacturer for verification. The Income Tax Department's investigation revealed discrepancies in utilisation certificates issued by the bank without physical verification. The manufacturer requested cross-examination of bank officers, which was denied. The dealers denied the allegations, creating conflicting statements during the investigation.

In a similar case involving another manufacturer, the Tribunal set aside the order due to lack of providing documents to the manufacturer and denying the opportunity for cross-examination of bank officers. The Tribunal emphasized that charges of clandestine removal must be supported by concrete evidence, not assumptions. Consequently, the Tribunal found the allegation of manufacturing diesel engines without duty payment against the manufacturer unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, leading to the penalties imposed on dealers and other appellants to be revoked as well.

The judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in establishing charges of clandestine removal and the necessity of providing relevant documents to the accused for verification. The denial of cross-examination and discrepancies in statements raise doubts about the validity of the allegations. The comparison with the previous Tribunal judgment underscores the consistent requirement for tangible evidence to support charges in such cases.