2016 (3) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Unaccounted clearance of dutiable items - sale of gutkha on cash basis - Held that - In the present case, the Revenue is able to establish with different source of evidence by way of independent statements by the drivers of the transporting vehicles, corroborated by the Supervisor of the appellant s unit and finally fully corroborated and admitted by the Director of the appellant - unit. These facts have not been controverted by any material evidence by the appellant. Their only objection is that more corroboration regarding the actual buyers of the clandestinely removed goods and details of money received etc. is not available. As find that the statements given by the Director mention about sale of gutkha on cash basis without preparing any bill or entering in the statutory records. The purchase of raw materials is also on cash basis without any accounting. He also admitted that the entries and the contents of the private records in the form of kachcha slips recovered from the drivers of the vehicles. Similar kachcha slips covering the seized goods were admitted and not disputed even now. As mentioned earlier, all the evidences are similar for the seized goods as well as the goods earlier cleared on the same modus operandi except that in respect of 50 bags, there is a physical seizure of clandestinely removed goods. The private records were corroborated by three different persons and the statements are not retracted thereafter. It is relevant to note that the appellant approached the Settlement Commission for settling the case. However, the same was rejected by the Commission, which resulted in the continuation of departmental adjudication and appeals thereafter. The present case is not the one which is based only on statement of the Director of the appellant company. It is based on the private records seized from the transport drivers corroborated by three different persons. In the present case, unaccounted production and clearances were evidenced by the categorical admission of the Director and Supervisor of the appellant company and there were kachcha slips seized along with goods. Thus find that the appellant have not made out a case to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and as such, reject the appeals. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
Unaccounted clearance of dutiable items by the appellant, sufficiency of evidence to establish clandestine clearance, challenge to duty demand and penalty based on lack of corroborative evidence, rejection of Settlement Commission application.

Analysis:

Unaccounted Clearance of Dutiable Items:
The case revolves around the unaccounted clearance of dutiable items by the appellant, specifically "gutkha" products. The Revenue presented evidence including handwritten slips recovered from drivers, statements by drivers and company personnel, and physical seizures of goods. The appellant admitted to unaccounted clearances and discharged duty liability for seized goods.

Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Clandestine Clearance:
The Revenue provided corroborative evidence from multiple sources, such as statements from drivers, the Supervisor, and the Director of the appellant company. The appellant contested the duty demand and penalties, arguing for further investigation into raw material procurement and other details. However, the Tribunal found the evidence presented by the Revenue to be coherent and clear, establishing clandestine clearances.

Challenge to Duty Demand and Penalty Based on Lack of Corroborative Evidence:
The appellant challenged the duty demand and penalties imposed, claiming insufficient corroboration regarding the actual buyers of the clandestinely removed goods and financial details. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, noting that the evidence from various sources, including the seized goods and private records, was consistent and uncontroverted.

Rejection of Settlement Commission Application:
The appellant had approached the Settlement Commission, but their application was rejected. This rejection led to the continuation of departmental adjudication and subsequent appeals. The Tribunal considered this aspect but ultimately upheld the lower authorities' findings, rejecting the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions. The evidence presented by the Revenue, including statements and corroborative records, was deemed satisfactory in establishing the unaccounted clearance of dutiable items. The Tribunal upheld the original order and dismissed the appeals accordingly.