2006 (11) TMI 53 - AT - Central Excise

Demand Alleged that appellant were manufacturer of crimped texturised yarn and he cleared excess quantity of texturised yarn in the guise of waste Department fail to produce any evidence against the appellant Demand not sustainable

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Alleged non-accountal of excess production due to the use of anti-static oil leading to clearance without reflecting in RG-I Register.
2. Alleged suppression of actual quantity of texturised yarn by claiming waste as excess and clearing it in the guise of waste.
3. Allegations of clearance without Central Excise duty paying documents to customers.
4. Discrepancies in statements regarding the clearance of texturised yarn as waste yarn.
5. Disagreement over the contents of the panchanama and statements provided by the director.
6. Allegations of clandestine clearance of crimped/textured yarn in the guise of waste.
7. Dispute over the clearance of goods under valid Central Excise documents and delivery challans.
8. Lack of corroborative evidence to prove clandestine clearance of goods in the guise of waste.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from the Commissioner's order regarding the use of anti-static oil in the texturising process resulting in weight gain of texturised yarn without proper reflection in records. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the quantity of waste claimed by the appellants and the actual production figures, leading to allegations of clearance without proper documentation.

2. The Commissioner's order highlighted the alleged suppression of actual quantity of texturised yarn by claiming excess waste and clearing it as waste yarn. Statements from the authorised signatories indicated discrepancies in the quantity reported and the actual clearance of goods.

3. Concerns were raised regarding the clearance of goods to customers without Central Excise duty paying documents, leading to suspicions of irregularities in the transactions.

4. Disagreements emerged over the clearance of texturised yarn as waste yarn, with conflicting statements from individuals involved in the process, raising doubts about the accuracy of the reported information.

5. The director's statements contradicted the contents of the panchanama and the statements provided by the authorised signatories, adding complexity to the case and creating uncertainty about the actual events surrounding the clearance of goods.

6. Allegations of clandestine clearance of crimped/textured yarn in the guise of waste were made, but the Commissioner found a lack of corroborative evidence to substantiate these claims, emphasizing the importance of concrete proof in such cases.

7. The Commissioner's analysis focused on the clearance of goods under valid Central Excise documents and delivery challans, with the appellants providing documentary evidence to support their claims of legitimate transactions.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's findings, leading to the rejection of the appeals and the disposal of cross-objections accordingly, highlighting the importance of presenting substantial evidence to support claims in legal proceedings.