2017 (6) TMI 38 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine production and removal - SS Steel Ingots/Billets/SS Flats and other products of iron steel falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985 - Held that - Revenue could not discredited the evidence which was produced before the courts below to the effect that SS Flats seized from the premises of two cutters were duty paid. It is not the case of Revenue contrary to the submission of the respondent that majority of SS Flats found in the premises of the two cutters were purchased by M/s. Agarwal Steels from RJIL and not from JAL. I further find that the Revenue have mainly relied on the uncorroborated oral evidence. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between oral and documentary evidence, it is the documentary evidence which prevails over the oral evidence. Once duty paid nature of the goods in question is established, the goods could not have been confiscated. The courts below have rightly rejected the allegations of the Revenue which was based only of the oral statements initially given and further presumptions, whereas the findings of the courts below are based on facts which was relatable with the documents and records as well as capacity of production - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of clandestine production and removal of goods by RJIL.
2. Seizure and marketability of 298.806 MT of SS Billets found at RJIL premises.
3. Alleged unaccounted SS Flats and Flat Cuttings found at the premises of cutters.
4. Correlation of seized goods with duty-paying documents.
5. Validity of the Revenue's reliance on oral statements and presumptions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Clandestine Production and Removal of Goods by RJIL:
The Revenue alleged that RJIL engaged in large-scale evasion of duty by clandestine production and removal of SS Flats and other products. Searches at RJIL’s premises and associated locations revealed unaccounted goods and documents suggesting unrecorded transactions. The Additional Commissioner, however, found that the goods at the cutters' premises were properly accounted for with excise invoices, and the shortage noted was not corroborated by other evidence like electricity consumption or production capacity studies. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, noting that the Order-in-Original was a speaking order based on substantial evidence.

2. Seizure and Marketability of 298.806 MT of SS Billets Found at RJIL Premises:
The Revenue seized 298.806 MT of SS Billets from RJIL, claiming they were meant for clandestine removal. RJIL contended these billets were defective and not marketable. The Additional Commissioner accepted RJIL's explanation, noting that the billets were segregated for re-melting and had not reached a marketable stage. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed this, finding no merit in the Revenue’s argument that the defective claim was an afterthought.

3. Alleged Unaccounted SS Flats and Flat Cuttings Found at the Premises of Cutters:
The Revenue seized SS Flats and cuttings from the premises of two cutters, alleging these were supplied by RJIL without invoices. The Additional Commissioner found that the goods were accounted for with proper duty-paying documents, and the minor shortages noted were due to estimation errors. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this, noting that the investigation failed to consider the duty-paid nature of goods supplied by JAL, RJIL’s sister concern, to the cutters.

4. Correlation of Seized Goods with Duty-Paying Documents:
The Revenue argued that the documents provided by RJIL and their agents were not correlatable to the seized goods. However, the Additional Commissioner found that the records and invoices submitted by RJIL and their agents, including M/s. Agarwal Steels, were sufficient to account for the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, noting that the Revenue’s reliance on uncorroborated oral statements was insufficient to prove clandestine removal.

5. Validity of the Revenue's Reliance on Oral Statements and Presumptions:
The Revenue’s case heavily relied on oral statements and presumptions of clandestine activity. The Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) found these statements uncorroborated and insufficient against the documentary evidence provided by RJIL. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence, especially when the latter is not supported by substantial proof.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, finding no substantial evidence of clandestine removal by RJIL. The findings of the lower authorities were based on comprehensive documentary evidence, production capacity, and electricity consumption studies, which outweighed the Revenue’s presumptions and uncorroborated statements. The respondents were entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.