2009 (2) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption clandestine removal - evasion could not be found solely on the basis of this lone confessional statement.- this plea cannot be ignored in the context of the submissions by the terry towel manufacturers that they exported their entire production - GPS could have legally cleared the impugned cheese yarn without payment of duty and there was no need to send cheese yarn in the guise of hank yarn. - The statutory provisions regulating export of excisable goods do not require the inputs to suffer duty burden - It has been laid down that comprehensive and reliable evidence is a must to find clandestine clearances and evasion in the instant case the revenue has not been able to substantiate its case with concrete evidence demand set aside

Summary

Issues: Allegations of evasion of central excise duty, imposition of penalties, reliance on evidence, clandestine clearances, reliability of witness statements, and proper evidence for establishing evasion.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, the case revolved around allegations of evasion of central excise duty against a company (GPS) and its Managing Director. The investigation revealed that GPS had cleared cotton yarn on cheese to terry towel manufacturers in the guise of hank yarn. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty and penalties based on collected evidence, including statements from involved parties. The appellants contested the allegations, arguing that their premises were not physically verified, and no concrete evidence of misdeclaration was found. They also highlighted discrepancies in witness statements and lack of reliable evidence to establish the evasion.

Regarding the clearances made to another company (PTE), the appellants challenged the reliance on note books of a sizing mill as evidence. They argued that the statements of the witness from PTE were contradictory and lacked evidential value. The appellants also emphasized the necessity of comprehensive evidence to prove clandestine clearances, citing various case laws in support of their claim.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides and analyzed the evidence presented. It noted the contradictions in witness statements and the lack of concrete proof to substantiate the allegations. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of reliable evidence in establishing evasion through clandestine clearances. It emphasized that a single confessional statement was insufficient to prove the evasion, especially when there was no penal action against other involved parties. The Tribunal ultimately found that the revenue failed to provide substantial evidence to support the allegations of evasion by GPS. Therefore, it set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, concluding that the finding of clearance of cheese yarn in the guise of hank yarn and evasion of excise duty was not sustainable due to the lack of proper evidence.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of reliance on witness statements, the need for concrete evidence in establishing evasion, and the importance of comprehensive proof in cases of clandestine clearances. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of reliable evidence and the insufficiency of a lone confessional statement in proving allegations of evasion.