2005 (6) TMI 406 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of clandestine removal of final products without payment of duty.
2. Seizure and confiscation of 24 cartons with discrepancies in description.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Allegation of Clandestine Removal
The Revenue appealed against OIA No. 300/2002-C.E., which set aside demands and penalties related to the alleged clandestine removal of final products without duty payment. The officers found no discrepancies in the manufacturing and clearance process at the appellant's factory. However, discrepancies arose when 24 cartons of a product were found at a dealer's premises in Mumbai instead of the 23 mentioned in the invoice. The Commissioner (A) examined the matter thoroughly and concluded that there was no excess import of raw materials and dropped the charges of clandestine manufacture and clearance based on various findings, including the confirmation from transporters and absence of evidence of excess raw material purchase. The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claims and citing previous judgments to support the decision.

Issue 2: Seizure and Confiscation of 24 Cartons
Regarding the seizure and confiscation of 24 cartons, the Commissioner found discrepancies in the description of goods but noted that 23 cartons were received under a valid invoice, with no differential duty involved. The excess carton was explained satisfactorily, and there was no evidence of clandestine clearance. The tribunal highlighted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of excess production or import of raw materials, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in such cases. The tribunal referred to previous judgments to support the decision and upheld the Commissioner's findings, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in cases of alleged clandestine activities and discrepancies in goods descriptions. The tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal precedents, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence supporting their claims.