2008 (8) TMI 315 - AT - Central Excise

Proof of Clandestine Removal Admittedly, the documents recovered by the officers at the time of visit in the factory were rough sheets on letter head of another factory on which the workers had written the production of castings at intermediate stage of product and they have been made the basis to work out the production of final product. - The Revenue s stand that the entire castings reflected in rough work sheet were converted into sheets that is the final product cannot be accepted, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence on record - As regards the statement, the same are retracted by filing affidavit held that in the absence of any authenticated private records, the production of castings and subsequent conversion into sheets and in the absence of any corroborative documentary evidence and clearance of the sheets, demand can not be confirmed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of clearance of final product without proper record keeping.
2. Confirmation of demand and penalty imposition.
3. Acceptance of the assessee's stand by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Rejection of confessional statements as evidence.
5. Lack of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The case involved an allegation of clearance of the final product without proper record keeping. The officers visited the respondent's factory and found rough printed proforma maintained by workers regarding castings at an intermediate stage. The officers suspected that the entire production of the final product was not reflected in the statutory record. Statements of partners confirmed the process of manufacturing and recording of castings for the final product. The officers initiated proceedings for confirmation of demand based on this suspicion.

Issue 2: Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued, leading to an order by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demand and imposing a penalty. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, accepting the assessee's stand. The Commissioner noted various losses during the manufacturing process that were not considered by the adjudicating authority, leading to the rejection of the demand confirmation and penalty imposition.

Issue 3: The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's stand that the record of casting at the intermediate stage was maintained informally by workers and not in the statutory record. Various losses during the manufacturing process were highlighted, which were not accounted for by the revenue authorities. The Commissioner found no evidence of clandestine removal based on unsigned rough records and retracted confessional statements.

Issue 4: The confessional statements of partners were retracted through affidavits, and the Appellate authority rightly rejected them as evidence. The statements lacked credibility as witnesses were not present during the recording, and some were unfamiliar with the language used in the statements. Without authenticated private records, the statements were deemed unreliable.

Issue 5: The Appellate authority rejected the statements and found no corroborative documentary evidence to support the allegation of clandestine removal. The rough sheets recovered from the factory were insufficient to determine the actual production of the final product accurately. The lack of evidence led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal, as no basis existed to conclude against the respondents regarding the input-output ratio of casting and sheets.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of proper record-keeping, the need for corroborative evidence in tax proceedings, and the rejection of unreliable statements in the absence of supporting documentation. The decision favored the respondents, emphasizing the significance of thorough investigation and evidence in tax disputes.