2008 (1) TMI 35 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal Revenue on the basis of statement of manager alleged that assessee had clandestinely remover of the goods Tribunal not found any other other corroborative evidence against the assessee and rejected the revenue appeal

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of Revenue's appeal on the grounds of clandestine removal.

Analysis:
1. Clandestine Removal Issue: The issue revolved around clandestine removal initiated during a visit by Central Excise officers to the factory. The Manager's statement, later retracted by the General Manager, played a crucial role. Subsequently, the assessee provided details of lot numbers and invoice numbers. A show cause notice was issued but dropped by the original adjudicating authority due to lack of corroborative evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the importance of voluntary confessional statements, citing relevant case law. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the reliance on a single statement and lack of corroboration. The statement was deemed to be extracted under pressure, leading to doubts about the clandestine removal allegations.

2. Appeal and Rejection: The Revenue's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was based on challenging the rejection of their case. However, the Commissioner upheld the decision, emphasizing the absence of corroborative evidence and the reliance on a potentially coerced statement. The Commissioner noted the lack of concrete evidence from the Revenue to support the claim of clandestine removal. Both lower authorities examined the evidence thoroughly and concluded in favor of the respondent. The appellate tribunal, led by Member (Judicial), found no reason to interfere with the decision, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of voluntary and uncoerced statements in cases of clandestine removal. The lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on a potentially pressured statement led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The decision underscored the importance of concrete evidence to substantiate allegations, ultimately upholding the lower authorities' findings in favor of the respondent.