2017 (4) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - Held that - the third party s records at the supplier s side as affirmed by the person incharge and further corroborated by the appellant cannot be discounted only on the ground of further evidences like transportation and receipt of money has not been proved. In a clandestine manufacture and clearance, each stage of operation cannot be established with precision - I find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the lower authority - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Unaccounted manufacture and clearance of dutiable items, reliance on third-party evidence, voluntary nature of statements, corroborative evidence, penalties imposed.

Analysis:
The case involved challenges by the main appellants against findings of lower authorities regarding unaccounted manufacture and clearance of dutiable items. The appellants argued that the Department lacked detailed investigation on transportation of raw materials/finished goods and receipt of sale proceeds, leading to insufficient corroborative evidence for the case of clandestine manufacture and clearance. They contended that third-party evidence and statements, including those of the partner of the appellant firm, should not be relied upon. The appellants emphasized the need for further corroboration regarding transport details and money receipts. However, the evidence collected from the suppliers' site was found to be categorical and undeniable. The private records of the suppliers, affirmed by responsible individuals, supported the case of unaccounted raw material supply and subsequent manufacture by the appellants. The partner of the appellant's firm admitted to unaccounted clearance of dutiable items, although the buyers were not disclosed. The Tribunal noted that the suppliers' records, corroborated by the partner, could not be disregarded. The appellants' argument about the absence of buyer details and transport specifics was deemed untenable, especially since the authenticity of records and statements was not contested. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence, including third-party records and admissions, was sufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance, dismissing the appeals against penalties and duty demands.

In the judgment, it was highlighted that in cases involving unaccounted manufacture, each piece of evidence must be evaluated for a conclusion. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence from the suppliers, affirmed by responsible individuals and the appellant's partner, was crucial in establishing the unaccounted manufacture and clearance. The appellants' attempt to question the voluntariness of statements and the lack of further corroboration was rejected, as the evidence presented was deemed substantial and credible. The Tribunal underscored that in cases of clandestine activities, it is not always possible to establish every operational detail with precision. The appellants' reliance on case laws to dispute the findings was deemed irrelevant in the context of the present case. Ultimately, after careful consideration of the grounds of appeal and the findings of the lower authority, the Tribunal found no justification to overturn the decisions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and upholding of penalties and duty demands.

Therefore, the judgment upheld the penalties and duty demands imposed on the main appellant and the partner, emphasizing the significance of corroborative evidence, admissions, and the credibility of records in cases involving unaccounted manufacture and clearance of dutiable items.