2007 (8) TMI 567 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Clandestine removal - Reliability of Evidence - whether the clandestine removal of the finished goods has taken place or not based on the records maintained by the company and by the Production Manager?

Summary

Issues:
Clandestine removal of goods based on discrepancies in records and private diaries.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against an order confirming duty demand and penalties on the appellants for alleged clandestine removal of goods. The officers found discrepancies between production and clearances recorded in official documents and private diaries maintained by the Production Manager. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand and penalties, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the order. The main issue was whether clandestine removal occurred based on the records. The Production Manager's statements and private diaries indicated a significant gap in production figures. The Tribunal noted that the Production Manager did not retract his statements, and the authenticity of the private diaries was not challenged. The Tribunal emphasized that reliance on private diaries was valid when the entries were not disputed.

The Revenue argued that discrepancies in figures justified the demand and penalties, while the Respondent contended that statements alone were insufficient evidence. The Tribunal observed that the private diaries, maintained by the Production Manager, provided a clear account of production and clearances. It was noted that the Respondents failed to present evidence contradicting the entries in the private diaries. The Tribunal highlighted that the Production Manager's role and the lack of contrary evidence supported the Revenue's case. Previous case laws were cited, emphasizing the importance of ownership and reliability of private records, which favored the Revenue's position in this instance.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Production Manager's private diaries were reliable evidence of production and clearances, establishing clandestine removal. The Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed to have erred in overturning the original order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and reinstated the adjudicating authority's decision, allowing the Revenue's appeals.