2005 (7) TMI 464 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of duty and penalty based on clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty.

Analysis:
The appeal contested the confirmation of duty and penalty due to the alleged clandestine removal of Multilayer Polythene Film without duty payment. The charge was primarily based on entries in a register and invoice book seized during a raid. However, the Director of the company denied the accuracy of these entries in a statement. The Revenue failed to collect corroborative evidence, such as statements from factory workers or officers, evidence of extra inputs or electricity consumption, or statements from buyers who allegedly received goods clandestinely. The Tribunal emphasized that charges of clandestine removal require concrete evidence, not assumptions. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal held that duty confirmation solely based on unverified entries is not legally sound.

The recovery of the invoice book did not conclusively prove clandestine removal, as two out of three invoices were canceled by the appellants, and the third showed duty payment for goods removed. The duty amount for the short goods found in the factory was minimal and had already been deposited by the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants and granting them relief as per the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in cases involving clandestine removal of goods to justify duty confirmation and penalties. It underscores that assumptions or unverified entries are insufficient grounds for such charges, emphasizing the need for substantial proof to establish liability.