2015 (11) TMI 1614 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - clandestine removal - Held that - I find that the Revenue failed to place any evidence on record against the findings of Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside adjudication order.
- Alleged clandestine removal of goods by the Respondent.
- Authenticity and admissibility of documents recovered from a third party.
- Failure of Revenue to provide evidence against findings of Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside an adjudication order related to the alleged clandestine removal of goods by the Respondent, a manufacturer of moulds for footwear machines. The Revenue's main contention was that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not seek comments from the Department before passing the order. The Revenue argued that voluntary statements were sufficient to prove clandestine removal, citing relevant case laws. On the other hand, the Respondent's counsel disputed the authenticity of documents recovered from a third party, specifically, the "Nishu Exercise Book" and "Student Exercise Book" found at the job worker's premises. The Respondent challenged the recovery of these private records, pointing out the lack of a Panchnama evidencing the seizure of these documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) found merit in the Respondent's submission, noting the absence of crucial documentation regarding the recovery process. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the doubt surrounding the authenticity of the recovered private records due to the lack of proper documentation and witnesses. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, as the Revenue failed to provide any evidence against the findings regarding the disputed documents. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and evidence in establishing charges of clandestine removal.