2016 (4) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Evasion of Revenue - Clearance of the aluminum sulphur powder without invoice - Proceeded to examine various corroborating evidence gathered by investigation - Held that - above scrutiny shows application of mind by the adjudicating authority to the questionable clearances made by appellant causing loss of Revenue which was not repelled leading any cogent evidence. The way in which the appellant was operating demonstrated unaccounted dealing of finished goods causing evasion of duty. There were cumulative evidence on record that went against the appellant to impeach its conduct proving clandestine removal. Therefore, a reasoned and speaking order is passed by adjudicating authority and nothing is controverted in the grounds of appeal and there is no scope to intervene to the adjudication. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay against the application
- Dilatory tactics of the appellant
- Clearance of goods without invoice
- Evasion of Revenue intentionally
- Duty liability, interest, and penalty
- Examination of evidence and defense pleas
- Manipulation in the production process
- Evidence of unaccounted transactions
- Application of mind by the adjudicating authority
- Dismissal of the appeal

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant was not present for condonation of delay against its application, prompting the issuance of a notice for explanation. The dilatory tactics of the appellant were evident from their conduct.

Clearance of Goods Without Invoice:
The Revenue presented evidence of clearances made by the appellant without proper invoices, leading to evasion of Revenue intentionally. Various pieces of evidence, including statements from factory personnel, supported the findings of unaccounted transactions.

Duty Liability and Penalty:
The adjudicating authority examined the appellant's pleas and evidence but found no support for their contentions. Consequently, the appellant was held liable for duty, interest, and penalty due to established unaccounted transactions in the statutory record.

Manipulation in Production Process:
Evidence indicated manipulation in the production process, with the use of more water and inferior quality goods being manufactured. The appellant's modus operandi of using unaccounted raw materials for clandestine removal was deemed questionable.

Application of Mind by Adjudicating Authority:
The adjudicating authority thoroughly examined relevant issues and evidence, concluding that there was a case of evasion of Revenue before him. The authority's findings were based on seized documents, corroborating evidence, and defense pleas of the appellant.

Dismissal of the Appeal:
Given the reasoned and speaking order passed by the adjudicating authority, where nothing presented in the grounds of appeal controverted the findings, the appeal was dismissed. The cumulative evidence on record pointed towards the appellant's unaccounted dealings causing evasion of duty, leading to the rejection of the appeal.