2014 (7) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Shortage of stock - Clandestine removal of goods - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - Aapart from report of the Income Tax authorities there is nothing on record that the respondents had actually manufactured and removed the goods clandestinely as rightly discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The stock verification done by the Income Tax authorities cannot be accepted on its face value in view of the doubts raised by the respondents and in the absence of corroborative evidence, no duty of excise have been confirmed. The Tribunal in the case of Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2010 (12) TMI 290 - CESTAT, BANGALORE has held that the information received from the Income tax Department cannot be made the sole basis for confirmation of demand under the Central Excise when the Central Excise authorities in their investigations did not find any corroborative evidence of clandestine removal of their final products - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of finished goods leading to recovery of duty and imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
1. Background: The case involves the alleged clandestine removal of finished goods from a factory premises based on a stock verification conducted by the Income Tax Department, resulting in the initiation of recovery proceedings for duty and penalties.

2. Initial Proceedings: The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty recovery and imposed penalties on the respondents under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Central Excise Rules, 2002, respectively. Subsequently, the respondents appealed against this order before the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, highlighting that the proceedings were based on a shortage in physical stock compared to the recorded stock. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the physical verification process conducted by the Income Tax authorities and emphasized the lack of actual weightment or physical verification methods mentioned in the proceedings.

4. Legal Precedents: The Commissioner referred to various legal cases where demands based on stock discrepancies without actual weightment were not upheld. The Commissioner emphasized the importance of proper verification procedures and the need for corroborative evidence to support allegations of clandestine removal.

5. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, in a Miscellaneous Application, reiterated the reliance on the Income Tax authorities' report. However, the Tribunal's decision in a similar case emphasized that information from the Income Tax Department alone cannot be the sole basis for confirming demands under Central Excise without corroborative evidence.

6. Final Decision: The Tribunal, led by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal and the necessity for corroborative evidence before confirming duty demands under Central Excise.

7. Conclusion: The judgment underscores the importance of proper verification procedures, the need for corroborative evidence in cases of alleged clandestine activities, and the requirement for substantial proof before confirming duty demands. The decision highlights the significance of legal precedents and the Tribunal's role in ensuring fair and evidence-based judgments in excise duty matters.