2005 (9) TMI 526 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of excise duty and penalties based on alleged clandestine clearance of goods.
2. Reliability of weighment slips as evidence.
3. Correlation of weighment slips to specific goods through supporting evidence.
4. Discrepancies in weighment slips and collateral documents.
5. Adequacy of evidence to support the allegation of clandestine removal.
6. Justification of demand and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with a case where the first appellant, a manufacturer of Carbon Electrode Paste, was subjected to a demand of excise duty and penalties amounting to approximately Rs. 30 lakhs due to alleged clandestine clearance of goods. The penalties were also imposed on other company officials. The primary issue revolved around the finding that the appellant had clandestinely cleared carbon electrode paste, leading to the duty demand and penalties.

2. The main evidence supporting the allegation of clandestine removal was 101 weighment slips recovered from the appellant's factory by Central Excise officers. These weighment slips lacked specific details about the goods weighed and were mostly from external entities. The Commissioner concluded that the quantities mentioned in the slips were of goods manufactured by the appellant, a finding challenged in the appeal.

3. The appellant contended that their statutory records and other contemporaneous documents could correlate the weighment slips to specific goods. They highlighted that most slips related to transport of inputs, supported by GR-forms from the Transport Company and raw material registers. The remaining slips pertained to finished goods, backed by invoices indicating duty paid removal from the factory.

4. During the hearing, the appellant's Counsel presented supporting evidence to validate the explanation for the weighment slips. They argued that the Commissioner's view lacked substantial evidence and referenced a legal precedent emphasizing that weighment slips alone are insufficient to prove clandestine removal.

5. The Revenue's stance was that only a portion of the weighment slips could be correlated to transported goods, and discrepancies existed between the slips and other documents. They contended that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the appellant's explanation due to the lack of timely correlation and noted variations in quantities and particulars.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the evidence on record supported the appellant's explanation, refuting the claim of clandestine removal. The discrepancies were viewed in the context of the nature of raw materials used by the appellant. As there was no corroborating evidence to establish the weighment slips' quantities as Carbon Electrode Paste, the demand for duty and penalties was deemed unjustified, leading to the allowance of the appeals and setting aside of the demand and penalties.