2017 (7) TMI 639 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - demand on the basis of computer printouts recovered from CA/Accountant of M/s. IFL and M/s. IAPL - Held that - no investigation was conducted at the end of the appellant and the transporters were also not investigated to reveal the truth whether the clandestinely removed goods from IFL/ IAPL were transported up to the place of appellants - no evidence has been put-forth by the Revenue that the packing material supplied by IFL/IAPL were used in the excess manufactured goods by the appellant - As the evidence of clandestine removal of packaging material from the premises of IFL/IAPL, up to the place of appellant are missing, therefore, charge of clandestine removal is not sustainable against the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Allegation of clandestine removal of goods based on computer printouts; Admissibility of evidence under Section 36B of Central Excise Act, 1944; Reliability of documents recovered from a third party; Duty payment on manufactured goods; Evidence of excess manufacture; Imposition of penalties.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against a confirmed demand for clandestine removal of goods, based on evidence from computer printouts and statements. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing packaged drinking water under different brand names. The Revenue alleged clandestine removal based on documents recovered during investigations at related firms. The appellants contested the reliance on third-party documents without corroborative evidence, citing procedural lapses under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They referred to precedents like Modern Laboratories Vs. CCE, Indore and other cases to support their argument.

The Revenue, however, argued that incriminating documents recovered from related firms implicated the appellants in duty evasion. The related firms admitted to supplying goods without duty payment, leading to demands. The appellants had not recorded these transactions, and the related firms had paid duties before the Settlement Commission. The Revenue contended that demands should be confirmed against the appellants based on these admissions.

After hearing both sides, the judge considered the evidence and submissions. It was noted that no investigation was conducted at the appellants' end, and no evidence linked the clandestinely removed goods to the appellants. The charge of clandestine removal was deemed unsustainable due to lack of evidence of goods reaching the appellants' premises. Additionally, the absence of evidence showing excess manufacture by the appellants further weakened the Revenue's case. The demand based on third-party documents without supporting evidence was deemed unsustainable.

Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order, ruling the demand against the appellants as unsustainable. As a result, the imposition of penalties was also set aside. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, in favor of the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the admissibility and reliability of evidence, procedural requirements under the Central Excise Act, and the necessity of corroborative evidence in establishing allegations of duty evasion. The decision emphasized the importance of direct evidence linking the appellants to the alleged clandestine activities, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the demand and penalties imposed.