2007 (3) TMI 428 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Penalty on owner of truck carrying contraband goods

Summary

Issues: Allegation of surplus stock found in the factory and goods carried by a truck implicated in a legal case.

Allegation of Surplus Stock in the Factory:
The appellant challenged the Order of Adjudicating Authority regarding the finding of 33.465 M.T. of ingots in their factory and 13.200 M.T. carried by a truck. The appellant argued that the surplus stock was a result of statistical estimation due to limited time for verification. They contended that even if there was surplus stock, it did not leave the factory premises without duty payment. The Revenue, however, asserted that the surplus stock was properly weighed and unaccounted for as it lacked entries in excise records. The Tribunal concluded that while the stock was not recorded, the Revenue should verify if duty was paid upon removal to determine further action.

Goods Found in the Truck:
Regarding the goods carried by the truck, the appellant claimed that the driver's naming of the appellant was insufficient evidence to implicate them. They argued that without proper evidence and cross-examination of the driver, adverse conclusions should not be drawn. The Revenue contended that the driver's statement, along with the lack of proof of duty payment for the transported goods, justified implicating the appellant. However, the Tribunal found that the documents carried by the truck did not link the goods to the appellant, and without substantial evidence, suspicion alone could not lead to guilt. The appellant was deemed not liable for duty or penalties related to the goods found in the truck.

Judgment Outcome:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of M/s. JMD Alloys Ltd., confirming the action against M/s. Shyam Enterprise as proper. The appeal of Shri Ram Pratap Singh was fully allowed, absolving him of any charges. M/s. Shyam Enterprises' appeal was dismissed. The judgment highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and proper verification in determining liability for unaccounted goods and duty payments, emphasizing the necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt before imposing penalties.