2017 (7) TMI 402 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - shortage of finished goods - excess of raw material and work in progress - Held that - the quantity of 5885 Kg cannot be weighed in one go, the goods has to be weighed in parts and there should be a weighment sheet of weighment (if done physically). As the evidence of physical weighment is missing, in that circumstances, it is concluded that the goods has been weighed is only eye estimation basis. On the basis of the eye estimation, the allegation of clandestine removal of goods or excess found of goods is not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of goods, shortage of finished goods, excess of raw material and work in progress, duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty imposition, cross examination of witnesses.

In this case, the respondent, engaged in manufacturing CR sheets/coils, was subjected to stock taking by departmental officers leading to allegations of shortage of finished goods and excess of raw material and work in progress. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued demanding duty on the alleged clandestine clearance of goods, leading to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposition. The respondent contested two show cause notices, which were adjudicated upon. The Commissioner (A) later dropped the charges, prompting the Revenue to appeal. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner erred in dropping the charges due to the admission of duty liability by the respondent and the absence of cross examination of witnesses. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the statement of an employee was made under duress, questioning the validity of the physical verification due to lack of cross examination. The Tribunal noted the short duration of stock taking and the absence of weighment details for the goods, concluding that the allegations of clandestine removal and excess were not substantiated. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the absence of weighment evidence and the failure to produce panch witnesses for cross examination, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

This judgment involved the issue of alleged clandestine removal of goods, where the Tribunal analyzed the evidence of stock taking and physical verification. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of weighment details for the goods, leading to a conclusion that the goods were weighed based on eye estimation only, rendering the allegations unsustainable. Additionally, the issue of shortage of finished goods was considered, with the Revenue arguing that the respondent admitted duty liability. However, the Tribunal found that the admission did not negate the need for proper evidence, such as weighment records. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of excess raw material and work in progress, emphasizing the importance of physical verification evidence and cross examination of witnesses to substantiate the allegations.

Furthermore, the judgment dealt with the imposition of duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty on the respondent. The Tribunal assessed the validity of these actions based on the evidence presented during the adjudication process. The issue of cross examination of witnesses was crucial in determining the credibility of the physical verification and stock taking procedures. The Tribunal underscored the significance of producing panch witnesses for cross examination to establish the veracity of the stock taking process. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision to uphold the impugned order was influenced by the lack of concrete evidence and the failure to provide witnesses for cross examination, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.