2012 (12) TMI 1136 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Search and seizure operation, discrepancy in registers, excise duty liability, Tribunal's decision review.

In the present case, a search and seizure operation was conducted at the appellant's factory and offices, resulting in the discovery of incriminating documents - a computerized register and a handwritten register, showing discrepancies with the statutory register. The appellant was issued a show cause notice for allegedly removing more goods than declared. The Commissioner accepted the appellant's explanation that unrecorded copy GRs/RRs were for raw materials returned, not goods sent. However, the Tribunal disagreed, without independently verifying if the unrecorded GRs/RRs were related to clandestine removals. The High Court held that the Department should pinpoint the quantity of goods allegedly removed clandestinely to determine the correct excise duty liability. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner for further investigation.

The Tribunal noted evidence of payments received by the appellant for clearances shown in the seized registers, but failed to discuss this evidence. The High Court emphasized the need for evidence demonstrating that payments were received for alleged clandestine transactions recorded in the registers. The Commissioner was reminded to consider this aspect independently and make a judicious decision without being influenced by any prior views expressed.