2017 (5) TMI 1448 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - non-consideration of the plea of the appellant with reference to duplication of entries in their accounts maintained in the computer - Held that - The appellants have indulged in clandestine removal by itself should not lead to a conclusion that there could be summary finding of quantification of duty on all entries available in the private records - conclusion based on the inference without any supporting evidence cannot be summarily made while the documents maintained by the appellant in the form of sales ledger in the computer can form basis for examination the claims made by the appellant to discard certain entries if they are cogently explained should also be considered - matter remanded back to the Original Authority for re-examination of the matter restricting only to the claim of the appellant with reference to the possibility of duplication of computerized data entries maintained as sales ledger - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Undocumented clearances of excisable items without payment of duty.
2. Non-consideration of the plea of duplication of entries in the appellant's accounts maintained in the computer.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding possible unaccounted clearances of goods by the appellant, a cement manufacturer liable to Central Excise duty. Following verification and investigations, proceedings were initiated for demanding Central Excise duty of ?84,77,508 on account of undocumented clearances. The Original Authority held the appellant liable for ?37,83,334 towards central excise duty and imposed an equivalent penalty.

2. The main issue in the appeal is the non-consideration of the appellant's plea regarding the duplication of entries in their computerized accounts. The appellant argued that certain entries were duplicated on the same day for the same buyer, with identical truck numbers, and should not be counted as individual clearances for duty calculation. The Tribunal examined the appellant's submissions, including a chart of instances showing apparent duplication of entries, and found merit in the appellant's plea for re-examination.

3. The Tribunal observed that while the appellant's sales ledger maintained in the computer was admissible as evidence for duty calculation, the claim of duplication of entries needed further examination. The Tribunal noted instances where entries appeared to be duplicate in quantity and vehicle number for the same date. The Tribunal also considered the appellant's submission of illustrative documents showing discrepancies in vehicle capacity and clearance quantities on the same day.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for re-examination solely on the claim of duplication of computerized data entries maintained as sales ledger by the appellant. The Tribunal directed the appellant to submit supporting documents such as gatekeeper records, builty issued for consignments, and check-post corroboration details to substantiate their claim of entry duplication. The Tribunal emphasized that no finding on the merit of the claim had been made and allowed the appellant to present all relevant evidence for fresh adjudication.