2008 (5) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Evidence - Private document - Held that - inspite of the availability of names and addresses of the buyers the officers have not bothered to conduct investigations at their end so as to establish the Revenue s case we are of the view that the sufficient evidence does not exist in the present case so as to uphold the findings of clandestine activity against the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation for issuance of show cause notice
2. Merits of the case based on evidence and statements

Analysis:
1. Limitation for issuance of show cause notice:
The case involved the initiation of proceedings against the appellant based on a show cause notice dated 26-1-2006, proposing the confirmation of a duty demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant argued that the issuance of the show cause notice on 20-6-2006 was barred by limitation. The appellant contended that the investigation was completed in 2005, making the notice untimely. The Tribunal was referred to previous cases to support the argument on limitation. However, the Tribunal did not find the notice to be time-barred and proceeded to analyze the case on its merits.

2. Merits of the case based on evidence and statements:
The central issue revolved around the evidence presented by the Revenue against the appellant. The Revenue's case was primarily based on the statement of the Director of the company, admitting to the clearance of goods without duty payment. The appellant strongly contested this, arguing that there was no corroborative evidence to support the Revenue's claims. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the lot register recovered during the investigation, pointing out that the entries did not match their usual practices. Additionally, the appellant emphasized that no goods with the disputed lot number were found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to contact the buyers listed in the register or conduct further investigations to corroborate the Director's statement. The Tribunal emphasized the need for independent evidence to support allegations of clandestine activities and concluded that the Revenue's case lacked sufficient evidence. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of corroborative evidence and independent verification to support the Revenue's allegations against the appellant. The judgment underscored the importance of concrete evidence in establishing claims of clandestine activities and highlighted the necessity of thorough investigations to substantiate such allegations.