2009 (3) TMI 744 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Undervaluation - clandestine removal - excess of the invoice value - The case of the Department is based upon loose sheets seized on 10-9-1997

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged duty evasion by M/s. CSM based on seized documents.
2. Validity of duty demand and penalty imposed on M/s. CSM.
3. Legal sustainability of the demand based solely on records of M/s. KTC.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an investigation into alleged duty evasion by M/s. CSM based on documents seized at M/s. KTC's premises, a broker for yarn sales. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the valuation of yarn by M/s. CSM, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 13,12,276/- for the year 1997-98. Statements from various individuals supported the claim of under-valuation by M/s. CSM.

2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed an equal penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order citing lack of sustainability due to reliance on third-party records. The Revenue appealed this decision, leading to a review by the Appellate Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, particularly loose sheets seized from M/s. KTC, which allegedly indicated under-valuation by M/s. CSM. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the quantity cleared and the lack of a proper calculation method for the differential duty demand. The absence of recorded statements from key individuals and inconsistencies in the seized documents raised doubts about the accuracy of the duty demand.

4. Further examination of documents revealed conflicting information on the actual sale price of yarn, with directors of M/s. CSM denying knowledge of the loose sheets. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of concrete evidence linking the alleged under-valuation to actual transactions. Discrepancies in the quantity cleared and inconsistencies in the seized records undermined the validity of the duty demand.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, deeming the demand legally unsustainable without additional corroborative evidence beyond the records of M/s. KTC. The lack of conclusive proof linking the alleged under-valuation to actual transactions led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced on 3-3-2009, emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence to support the duty demand against M/s. CSM.