2015 (10) TMI 1934 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that - It is well settled law that the allegations of clandestine removal, being serious allegations, are required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and relatable evidences. The same cannot be upheld on the basis of doubts or assumptions and presumptions. I find that the evidence in the present case is insufficient and does not lead to inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Allegations of clandestine removal leading to demand of duty.

In this case, the appellants, engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, faced proceedings for alleged clandestine removal based on parallel invoices received from a non-informer source. The Revenue initiated proceedings resulting in the demand of duty. The Revenue's case relied on the receipt of parallel invoices and the statement of the buyer admitting to receiving the goods without entry in their records. However, the appellants did not provide any incriminating statements, and crucial questions were not asked to the buyer regarding payment for the goods. Additionally, no inquiries were made from truck owners, drivers, or transport authorities despite details of truck numbers on the invoices. The Tribunal emphasized that allegations of clandestine removal require substantial and relevant evidence, not mere doubts or assumptions. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to conclusively prove clandestine removal, leading to the impugned order being set aside, and the appeal allowed in favor of the appellants.