2014 (11) TMI 78 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods - Suppression of value of final products - confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties - Revenue s entire case is based upon the investigations conducted by them in respect of entries made in the balance sheet - Income accepted by Income Tax authority held fraudulent by Central Excise Authority - Held that - Central Excise authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere in the appellate orders passed by Income Tax authorities and to hold that transaction which stand accepted by the Income Tax authorities were not genuine transactions. The Tribunal in the case of R A Casting Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut I 2008 (6) TMI 197 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has dealt with an identical question. By referring to the Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Arabian Express Line Ltd. vs. Union of India 1994 (4) TMI 25 - GUJARAT High Court , it stand held by the Tribunal that law does not entitle the Revenue to disregard all the statutory excise records as well as audited financial accounts and records of the assessee-company, which have been duly verified and accepted by the competent authorities from time to time not only for central excise but also for purposes of income tax etc. Decision of R.A. Casting was upheld by the Supreme Court 2011 (1) TMI 1302 - Supreme Court of India . There is virtually no evidence produced by the Revenue as regards the clandestine manufacture and clearances of appellants final product. It is well settled law that the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal are required to be proved by production of sufficient evidence in the shape of production of raw material, the actual manufacture of the goods, transportation of the same or in the shape of identification of the buyers. There is no statement of any persons indicating or admitting that income as reflected in the appellants balance sheet stand derived from clandestine activities of manufacture and clearance of their final products. Infact we find that where the excess income not even entered in the balance sheet so surrendered by an assessee to the income tax authorities, it stand held by various Courts that same cannot be attributed to regular business of appellant unless there is evidence to that effect. there is not even an iota of evidence to indicate that excess income reflected by the appellant in their balance sheet and the other statutory records, which also stand assessed by the income tax authorities, was relatable to the manufacturing activities of the appellant. In the absence of any evidence we find no merits in the revenues stand - Reference in this regard can be made to the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE Ludhiana vs. Zoloto Industries 2014 (3) TMI 788 - CESTAT NEW DELHI as also Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Mayfair Resorts 2011 (3) TMI 175 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT . - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Allegations of under-valuation and clandestine activities leading to demand of duty and penalties
- Dispute over the authenticity of entries in the balance sheet and income sources
- Jurisdictional conflict between Central Excise and Income Tax authorities
- Burden of proof on Revenue to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance
- Reliability of statutory records audited by competent authorities

Analysis:

1. Allegations of under-valuation and clandestine activities: The judgment revolves around confirming a demand of duty against the main appellant, M/s. Tehri Girders Ltd., for allegedly under-valuing their final products and engaging in clandestine activities. The Revenue suspected evasion based on discrepancies in the balance sheet entries and income sources, leading to penalties on directors and other appellants.

2. Dispute over authenticity of entries: The main contention was the authenticity of income sources reflected in the balance sheet, such as share trading and sales commission. The appellants argued that their audited financial accounts were accepted by the Income Tax department, challenging the Revenue's allegations of fraudulent income.

3. Jurisdictional conflict: The Tribunal highlighted the lack of jurisdiction for Central Excise authorities to challenge Income Tax appellate orders. Citing precedents, the judgment emphasized that statutory records verified by competent authorities should not be disregarded by the Revenue without substantial evidence.

4. Burden of proof on Revenue: The judgment stressed the necessity for the Revenue to provide concrete evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance. Without substantial proof, including raw material procurement, manufacturing process details, buyer identification, and transportation evidence, the allegations could not be sustained.

5. Reliability of audited statutory records: The Tribunal reiterated that excess income not reflected in the balance sheet surrendered to Income Tax authorities cannot be automatically linked to clandestine activities. Relying on legal precedents, the judgment emphasized the importance of evidence to establish a connection between income sources and alleged clandestine practices.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing all appeals in favor of the appellants due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Revenue's claims of under-valuation and clandestine activities. The judgment underscored the significance of concrete proof in establishing allegations and the importance of respecting audited statutory records verified by competent authorities.