2013 (12) TMI 110 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods No evidence raised - Held that - Following M/s Arch Phatmalabs Ltd., Vs CCE 2004 (12) TMI 188 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - demand is not sustainable in the absence of evidence regarding receipt of inputs or manufacture of goods and removal - The Revenue has not advanced any evidence on record to show that clearances were effected in each invoices which are infact replica of original invoices being despatch invoice and proforma invoice - there is no other evidence reflecting upon the clearance of the final product or in respect of raw material and its utilization in the clandestine manufacturer of final product - Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the confirmation of demand made of clandestine removal which in turn are based upon the despatch invoices and proforma invoices which are nothing but replica of the original invoice Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of invoice documents for determining duty evasion.
2. Lack of evidence regarding manufacture and clearance of goods.
3. Reliance on communication from government department without corroborative evidence.
4. Application of precedent regarding demand sustainability in absence of evidence.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with two appeals by the Revenue arising from the same impugned order concerning the demand raised against the respondents based on Bitumen Emulsion invoices. The Revenue alleged duty evasion due to the use of multiple sets of invoices, suspecting clearance of final products under all sets. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the invoices in question were Consolidated/Proforma Invoices for accounting purposes, not despatch documents, and lacked details supporting clandestine clearances.

2. The Appellants argued that there was no evidence of manufacturing alleged clearances in a clandestine manner, emphasizing the absence of raw material receipts or dispatch records. The Adjudicating Authority's reliance on details from the government department, without tangible evidence of raw material receipt or dispatch, was deemed insufficient. The judgment referenced a precedent stating that demand is unsustainable without evidence of input receipt, manufacture, and removal of goods, especially when supplying to government departments.

3. The Revenue failed to provide additional evidence demonstrating clearances under each invoice, as the invoices were replicas of the original despatch invoice and proforma invoice. The lack of evidence regarding final product clearance or raw material utilization in clandestine manufacturing led the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand confirmation based on suspicions arising from the invoice documents.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision based on the insufficiency of evidence supporting duty evasion claims. The judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence, especially in cases involving government department transactions, and emphasizes the need for thorough investigation before confirming demands based solely on invoice discrepancies.

(Pronounced in the open court)