2007 (8) TMI 610 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Demand of duty based on clandestine removal, discrepancies in stock verification, confirmation of duty and penalty by the Commissioner.

Issue 1: Demand of duty based on clandestine removal
The Appellate Tribunal confirmed a demand of duty against the appellant for the final product and Modvat credit in respect of inputs, amounting to Rs. 2,20,953.32/- and Rs. 63,568.93/- respectively. This confirmation was based on findings of clandestine removal, which were derived from shortages and excess detected during a visit by Central Excise Officers on 27-5-1994. The impugned order by the Commissioner was passed in de novo proceedings after an appeal to the Tribunal resulted in a remand.

Issue 2: Discrepancies in stock verification
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing gaskets and radiators, contested the findings during the de novo proceedings. They raised several contentions before the Commissioner regarding the stock verification process. The appellant argued that the stock taking was not carried out properly, certain entries were not considered, and discrepancies in radiator types were not properly addressed by the investigating team. They also highlighted that discrepancies in inputs were due to the comparison method used by the department. The appellant contended that if all relevant factors were considered, there would be no variations in stock.

Issue 3: Confirmation of duty and penalty by the Commissioner
Despite the appellant's objections, the Commissioner upheld the demand of duty and imposed a penalty. However, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's objections regarding the stock taking process. The Tribunal noted that no inventories were prepared by the Revenue, and other discrepancies pointed out by the appellant were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal emphasized that apart from the shortages detected during stock verification, there was no other evidence of clandestine removal. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the need for legal and unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt in cases of clandestine removal. As there was a lack of corroborative evidence, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.