2010 (6) TMI 854 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against confirmation of demand under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for clandestine removal of ingots.

Issue 1: Clandestine Removal of Ingots

The assessees appealed against the confirmation of demand and penalty for the clandestine removal of 818 MTs of ingots. The charge was based on entries in a notebook seized on 5.7.2006, described as a Note Book of Material Requirement. The assessees argued that the author, Shri Y.Yuvaraj, the stores-in-charge, maintained entries related to raw material requirement. They requested examination of the handwriting on the page showing ingots stock, denying that it was written by Yuvaraj. The assessees challenged the seizure of semi-finished ingots, claiming they were rejects unfit for marketing and thus should not have been entered into the RG.1 Register but accounted for in Form IV Raw Material Register.

Issue 2: Expert Opinion on Handwriting

The Vice-President noted that crucial evidence would be a report by a handwriting expert to determine if the entries in the ingots stock notebook were made by Yuvaraj, as asserted by the Revenue and contested by the assessees. In the interest of justice, it was deemed necessary to obtain this vital information before confirming the demand. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision post obtaining the expert opinion. The authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessees to present their defense before passing fresh orders.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of expert opinion on the handwriting in the notebook to determine the validity of the charges related to clandestine removal of ingots.