2016 (11) TMI 783 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of manufactured goods - M.S. ERW Black Pipe & M.S. Scrap falling under chapter sub-heading No.7306.90 & 7204.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Umiya Chem Intermediate vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus 2008 (7) TMI 376 - AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT , where the issue is similar - it was held in the case that when there is proper appreciation of evidence on record on the basis of the incriminating documents found in the premises of Appellant and statements recorded and evidence of shortage of material clearly establishes clandestine removal of excisable goods - I find that the above decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the case in hand since the documents seized from the Appellant s premises are corroborating with the set of challans used in the removal of goods without payment of duty and the statements recorded also proves the mala fide act and intention of the Appellant. The demand of ₹ 30,725/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Five only) on the stock found short is overlapping and it is inclusive of the total demand raised. On this limited portion alone, I remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the same with the records. On the basis of the above findings I uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal except to the limited portion remanded. Appeal is disposed of accordingly

Summary

Issues:
Alleged evasion of Central Excise Duty by the Appellant through clandestine removal of goods without recording in statutory documents and without payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant, a manufacturer of M.S. ERW Black Pipe & M.S. Scrap, was accused of clearing goods without proper documentation, evading duty. Central Excise Officers found discrepancies during stock verification.

2. The Adjudicating Authority ordered recovery of duty, appropriation of deposited amount, imposed penalties, and ordered interest payment. The appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) was rejected, upholding the original order.

3. The Tribunal found discrepancies between the Appellant's private notebook entries and official records, indicating evasion. Statements from company representatives supported the allegations, with delayed retractions. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's arguments against reliance on the notebook and statements.

4. The Appellant's representative claimed discrepancies in production and clearance records, and weight measurement objections. However, the Tribunal found no objections raised during investigations, undermining the Appellant's grounds.

5. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents, emphasizing the importance of incriminating documents, statements, and evidence of clandestine removal. The burden of proof was on the Appellant to disprove the seized documents, which they failed to do.

6. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order, except for a remand on a specific demand calculation issue. The decision was based on corroborative evidence, legal precedents, and the failure of the Appellant to refute the allegations effectively.