2017 (8) TMI 14 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - 56882 Ballast and Transformers - Held that - the respondent had taken a definite stand that the computer print out had not given a total picture of the manufacture and clearance of the goods, and it was maintained on theoretical basis. Therefore, the respondent had not admitted the maintenance of computer print out as proper account of stock - no enquiry was conducted in respect of the alleged clandestine removal and the entire case was made out on a theoretical basis - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty, discrepancy in stock records, admissibility of computer printouts as evidence, applicability of relevant legal provisions, validity of Commissioner(Appeals) decision.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods
The case involved the respondents being accused of removing 56882 Ballast and Transformers without paying the required duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties, which were set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals). The Revenue filed an appeal challenging this decision.

Issue 2: Discrepancy in Stock Records
During the verification of documents, a shortage of finished goods was noted, leading to discrepancies between the Daily Stock Account (DSA) and Stock Summary Account. The respondent argued that the accounting software used did not provide a full picture of production and inventory. The Commissioner(Appeals) emphasized the lack of physical stock verification and reliance on computer printouts for evidence.

Issue 3: Admissibility of Computer Printouts
The Revenue contended that the computer printouts should be considered valid evidence based on the decision in a Supreme Court case. However, the respondent disputed the accuracy and completeness of the computer records, stating they were maintained theoretically. The Commissioner(Appeals) highlighted the need for proper evidence and lack of physical verification.

Issue 4: Applicability of Legal Provisions
The Revenue referenced legal precedents to support their argument regarding the maintenance of computer records. The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected these arguments, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence and the theoretical nature of the records. The decision was based on the absence of proof of clandestine removal and the reliance on theoretical grounds.

Issue 5: Validity of Commissioner(Appeals) Decision
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authority's order, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence, absence of physical verification, and reliance on theoretical grounds in the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal, the discrepancies in stock records, and the theoretical nature of the computer printouts. The judgment highlighted the importance of physical verification and proper evidence in such cases, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.