2017 (7) TMI 708 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Goods found in excess - 818 nos, of Ingots were not entered in the RG-1 register - Held that - the appellants have not advanced any justifiable arguments in respect of the excess 818 nos. of Ingots and have not advanced any plausible explanation for non-entry of the same in RG-1 register. They have not been able to establish as to whether the raw material used in the manufacture of such huge quantity of Ingots was entered in the Raw Material account, thus making it impracticable for them to clear the said goods without payment of duty - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-entry of ingots in RG-1 register leading to suspicion of clandestine removal.
2. Discrepancies in stock records and invoices indicating duty evasion.
3. Dispute over handwriting in stock notebook leading to the remand order.
4. Compliance with Tribunal's directions regarding handwriting expert's opinion.
5. Confiscation of excess ingots and imposition of duty, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant's factory was found with 818 excess ingots not recorded in the RG-1 register, raising suspicions of clandestine removal. Statements from authorized personnel confirmed the discrepancy, leading to seizure under Mahazar.

Issue 2:
Further investigations revealed discrepancies in stock records and invoices, showing clearance of ingots without duty payment amounting to ?3,14,236. This discrepancy led to initiation of proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalties.

Issue 3:
A dispute arose over the handwriting in the stock notebook, with the appellant contesting the authenticity of entries made by an employee. The Tribunal directed verification by a handwriting expert to resolve this issue.

Issue 4:
Compliance with the Tribunal's directions was crucial, as the matter was remanded for expert opinion on the disputed handwriting. The xerox copies of the notebook were sent to the handwriting expert, who confirmed the entries were made by the employee in question.

Issue 5:
The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, interest, and penalty based on the expert opinion. The confiscation of excess ingots was upheld, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal. The appellant's challenge regarding the handwriting expert's opinion was dismissed, as compliance with the expert's findings was deemed sufficient. The lower authorities' decisions regarding the excess ingots and duty evasion were upheld due to the lack of substantial evidence or justifiable arguments presented by the appellant.