2007 (8) TMI 300 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal case of Revenue is based upon the shortages in raw material without any corroborative evidence - search was conducted in a routine manner and there is no weighment sheet/report prepared which is necessary for stock verification - evidence in the present case is not sufficient to confirm the clandestine activity and consequently demand - as the show cause notice was issued after a period of 4 years from the date of detection of shortages, demand is time-barred

Summary

Issues: Detection of shortage of raw material, duty demand, personal penalty imposition, sufficiency of evidence, limitation period for issuing show cause notice.

Analysis:

1. Shortage of Raw Material and Duty Demand:
The case involved the detection of a shortage of copper scrap in the factory premises of the appellants during a visit by Central Excise officers. The shortage was admitted by the Director and authorized signatory, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand of Rs.80,179 and personal penalty imposition. The appellants paid the duty promptly but contested the notice. The appellants argued that the search was conducted without proper documentation like a weighment slip, essential for stock verification. They contended that the Revenue's case lacked corroborative evidence for clandestine removal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for legal and unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt in such cases, citing a precedent. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to confirm the demand against the appellants and set it aside along with the penalty imposition.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence and Limitation Period:
The Tribunal referred to a previous decision to highlight the importance of substantial evidence in proving clandestine activities. It noted that the evidence presented in the current case did not meet the required standard. Moreover, the Tribunal observed that the detection of the shortage in 2001 and the issuance of the show cause notice in 2005 exceeded the limitation period of 4 1/2 years, rendering the demand barred by limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed both appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHEMDABAD focused on the insufficiency of evidence to support the duty demand and penalty imposition due to a shortage of raw material detected in the appellants' factory. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete and unimpeachable evidence in cases involving clandestine activities. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the limitation period for issuing show cause notices, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants and setting aside the impugned order.