2012 (4) TMI 537 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Assessee produced the invoices as also other statutory documents showing that the clearances were effected through the documentary invoices maintained by them - Accepting such evidences, the original adjudicating authority dropped the demand - Held that - I find no substantial reason for doubting the correctness of the invoices inasmuch as it is not the Revenue s case that there was any cutting or overwriting in the invoices. No further investigations were made by the Revenue at the buyers end. As such the charges of clandestine removal cannot be upheld on the basis of doubts expressed by the Revenue and required much stronger evidence to establish the same. As such I find no reasons to set aside the orders of both the authorities below which has examined evidences and has held in favour of the respondents - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in clearance of goods.
2. Acceptance of invoices as evidence.
3. Allegations of manipulation in documents.
4. Burden of proof on Revenue for clandestine removal.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the clearance of goods, where initial statements indicated clandestine clearances but were later supported by invoices and statutory documents. The original adjudicating authority dropped the demand based on this evidence.

2. The Revenue appealed the decision, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower authorities' order, emphasizing the acceptance of invoices issued before the search date as correct evidence in favor of the respondent.

3. The Revenue contended that the documents were manipulated due to cuttings, overwriting, and the use of whitener in the daily stock register. However, the Tribunal found no substantial reason to doubt the correctness of the invoices, as there was no evidence of such manipulation in the invoices themselves.

4. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue failed to conduct further investigations at the buyers' end to substantiate the charges of clandestine removal. It was emphasized that stronger evidence was required to establish such allegations, and mere doubts expressed by the Revenue were insufficient to uphold the charges.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities that examined the evidence and ruled in favor of the respondent based on the invoices provided. The judgment underscored the importance of substantial evidence and the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish allegations of clandestine removal convincingly.