2014 (4) TMI 91 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Unaccounted and undisclosed stock found - Held that - Grounds of appeal of the appellant do not disclose any cogent evidence for interference to the appellate finding - appellant simply says that panchnama was faulty. Such a ground is not permissible when the manner how that is faulty is not evidenced - appellant s silence proves that there is no merit in its appeal. Finding of the first appellate authority is based on evidences and is reasoned - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Non-appearance of the appellant leading to grant of adjournments, unaccounted stock of biris found, incriminating material recovered, admission by the appellant, lack of cogent evidence for interference with appellate finding, faulty panchnama ground.

Non-appearance of the appellant leading to grant of adjournments:
The appellant failed to appear on multiple occasions despite adjournments granted for non-appearance. The appellant was enjoying a waiver of pre-deposit of 50% of the duty element in terms of a stay order. Due to the appellant's continuous absence, the appeal was taken up for disposal.

Unaccounted stock of biris found, incriminating material recovered, admission by the appellant:
During an investigation, unaccounted stock of biris was discovered in the adjoining premises of the appellant. Additionally, incriminating material in the form of loose papers and notebooks revealed unaccounted purchase and clearance of biris amounting to Rs. 2,05,361/-. The proprietor appellant admitted the recovery of incriminating documents and their contents, along with physical inventories of loose biris purchased from a supplier who also admitted the supply.

Lack of cogent evidence for interference with appellate finding, faulty panchnama ground:
The appellate authority considered the evidence presented, including the admission by the appellant and the supplier, and confirmed the adjudication based on these findings. The grounds of appeal by the appellant did not provide any substantial evidence to challenge the appellate finding. The appellant's claim of a faulty panchnama was deemed impermissible as the specifics of the alleged fault were not substantiated.

Conclusion:
The appellant's continuous absence, coupled with the lack of substantial evidence to challenge the findings of the appellate authority, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The decision was based on the evidence presented during the investigation and the admission made by the appellant and the supplier. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing cogent evidence to support any claims of procedural faults.