2004 (9) TMI 666 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty and demand of interest under Sections 11AC and 11AB for alleged clandestine removal of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty and Demand of Interest:
The case involved M/s. SAI Iron (India) Ltd., accused of a shortage of 202 MT of MS Ingots during a physical stock verification by Central Excise Officers. The Revenue demanded payment of duty and imposed an equal penalty under Section 11AC, directing the company to pay Central Excise duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand but set aside the penalty under Section 11AC and imposed interest under Section 11AB. The Revenue argued that the goods were removed clandestinely without payment of duty, justifying the penalty and interest. However, no evidence was presented to prove clandestine removal. The respondent company contended that there was no proof of clandestine removal and that suspicion alone cannot substitute for evidence. The burden of proving clandestine removal rests on the Revenue, as established by various tribunal decisions.

2. Burden of Proof and Lack of Evidence:
During the proceedings, the Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence supporting the allegation of clandestine removal. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that suspicion alone is insufficient to establish clandestine removal, which requires substantial evidence. The Tribunal's previous decision in the case of Kripal Springs (I) Ltd. highlighted the importance of evidence before imposing penalties or demanding interest. The judgment reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and in the absence of conclusive evidence, penalties under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB cannot be enforced. The decision underscored the necessity of tangible evidence to substantiate claims of clandestine activities and upheld the principle that suspicion alone is not adequate to establish guilt.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized the critical role of evidence in proving allegations of clandestine removal, highlighting that suspicion alone is insufficient to levy penalties and interest. The decision underscored the legal principle that the burden of proof rests with the Revenue and must be supported by concrete evidence to justify punitive actions under Sections 11AC and 11AB.