2009 (8) TMI 938 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against setting aside demand and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal of goods.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Alleged Clandestine Removal: The Revenue filed an appeal against the order setting aside a demand and penalty. The Revenue contended that discrepancies were found in 03 invoices during document scrutiny, where the duplicate copy was written by a different person than the original. The Revenue argued that this indicated a possibility of goods being cleared without duty payment. The Revenue relied on handwriting expert opinions showing differences in handwriting between copies.

2. Respondent's Defense: The respondent argued that during the financial year, they issued around 300 invoices, and discrepancies were only found in 03 invoices. They explained that the carbon was not placed in the original invoice, leading to hand-written copies. The respondent further stated that inquiries from customers confirmed receipt of goods under these invoices with payments made through banks. The details in consignee copies matched those in the seized triplicate copy of the invoice.

3. Judgment and Analysis: The judge found that while the duplicate copy of the invoice had different handwriting than the original and triplicate copies, the description of goods, quantity, and payment details remained consistent. Moreover, payments for goods cleared under the invoices were received by the respondent through banks. Given these circumstances, the judge concluded that there was no flaw in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of consistent details and payment evidence in determining the validity of demands related to alleged clandestine removal of goods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the arguments presented by both parties, the reasoning behind the decision, and the legal principles applied in resolving the issues raised in the appeal.