2008 (3) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal goods not accounted property in accounts were seized - Adjudicating Authority dropped demand and also dropped proceeding of confiscation - Adjudicating Authority did not make cross verification of record from origin to destination - impugned order was passed merely on supposition matter sent back for readjudication on the light of law and evidence - Revenue s appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of ld. Commr. of Central Excise, Patna; Allegations of trading activity regarding Parle-G brand biscuits and sugar purchase; Examination of evidence and records by Adjudicating Authority; Review Order passed by CBEC; Demand of Rs. 71,24,068/-; Confiscation proposed; Appeal by Revenue; Relief granted to Respondent; Grounds for dropping demand and penalty; Seizure of goods during search; Lack of evidence for manufacturing activities; Burden of proof; Purchase of Parle-G brand biscuits; Discrepancies in records; Fair opportunity of hearing.

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal by Revenue against the order of the ld. Commr. of Central Excise, Patna, which was based on a show-cause notice dated 18-3-2002. The Revenue alleged trading activity regarding Parle-G brand biscuits and sugar purchase by the Respondent. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was challenged by the Revenue, claiming lack of examination of essential evidence and records, leading to unjust conclusions. The Revenue supported the Review Order passed by CBEC and sought to reverse the impugned order dated 23-11-2002.

On the other hand, the Respondent was granted relief by the Adjudicating Authority, dropping the demand of Rs. 71,24,068/- and penalty. The Respondent's representative argued that all allegations in the show-cause notice were thoroughly examined, and the Authority's decision was reasoned. The Respondent provided explanations regarding the purchase of Parle-G brand biscuits and sugar, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claims. The Respondent's position was that the case against them was based on surmises and conjectures without substantial evidence.

During the search of the Respondent's premises, physical stock of biscuits and sugar was seized, leading to discrepancies in accounting and lack of proof for manufacturing activities. The Adjudicating Authority's order was criticized for relying on suppositions rather than concrete evidence. The Authority's failure to conduct thorough cross-verification of records and lack of examination of past records raised doubts about the justification of the decision.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed Revenue's appeal by remanding the case for readjudication in light of the law and evidence, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing to both sides. The decision highlighted the need for a judicious approach based on cogent evidence rather than suppositions to ensure a just outcome.