2017 (4) TMI 374 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the recovery of certain loose sheets as also private register - Held that - Admittedly, the entire case of the Revenue is based upon recovery of some so called incriminating documents without any corroboration from independent sources - the clandestine charges are required to be established beyond doubt and should be on the basis of evidence and not merely assumptive - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Allegation of clandestine removal based on seized records without corroboration.

Analysis:
The case revolved around an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a duty demand and penalty on the manufacturing unit and its Director for alleged clandestine removal. The Revenue's case was primarily based on the recovery of loose papers and private registers during a search conducted at the factory. The investigation alleged shortages of raw material and finished goods, leading to the demand of approximately ?21.46 lakhs. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the evidence presented by the Revenue was insufficient to prove clandestine removal. The Commissioner emphasized that the recovered documents lacked authenticated information and could not be solely relied upon to uphold the charges. Citing precedents, the Commissioner highlighted the necessity of substantial, convincing evidence to prove clandestine activities. The Commissioner concluded that the demand based solely on seized records without further corroboration was unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of the charges and penalties imposed on the appellant and the Director.

Moving forward, the Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's decision. Upon reviewing the impugned order and the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's reasoning. The Tribunal concurred that the Revenue's case lacked independent corroboration for the allegations of clandestine removal. Relying on established Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal stressed the importance of concrete evidence rather than assumptions in proving such serious charges. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized the necessity of irrefutable evidence to substantiate allegations of clandestine activities, highlighting the importance of a robust evidentiary foundation in such cases.

In conclusion, the judgment underscored the significance of providing substantial and corroborated evidence to support allegations of clandestine removal. It reiterated that mere recovery of documents without independent verification is insufficient to establish such charges. The decision emphasized the need for a strong evidentiary basis supported by credible sources to uphold allegations of clandestine activities and imposition of penalties.