2007 (9) TMI 75 - AT - Central Excise

Demand Revenue alleged that appellant is clandestine manufacture and removal of the final product on the basis of statement of director of the company but as per appellant it is can t consider as conclusive evidence Benefit of doubt is in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Proceedings initiated against the appellant for clearance of goods without payment of Central Excise duty based on discrepancies in a rough note book.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing dyestuffs, was subjected to proceedings following the discovery of a rough note book during a visit by Central Excise officers. The note book, authored by the Chief Operator, contained entries inconsistent with the production records in the RG1 register. The Director admitted the omission in duty payment, leading to the initiation of proceedings resulting in a demand for duty payment, personal penalties, and confiscation of assets.

The proceedings culminated in an order by the Addl. Commissioner confirming the duty demand and penalties. Subsequent appeal led to a reduction in penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals), with no appeal filed by the Director. The appellant challenged this order, leading to the current judgment.

During the appeal, the Revenue's case primarily relied on the rough note book. The appellant rightly questioned the lack of statement recording from the Chief Operator, the author of the note book. The Director's admission raised doubts but was not conclusive evidence of duty evasion. The absence of corroborative evidence, statements from manufacturing personnel, or buyers indicating clandestine activities, coupled with no stock discrepancies, supported the appellant's position.

Considering the lack of substantial evidence and extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of evidence and due process in such cases.

This judgment, delivered on 12-9-2007, highlights the significance of proper evidence and procedural fairness in excise duty cases, ensuring that decisions are based on concrete proof rather than mere suspicions or isolated admissions.