9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1295 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - search was conducted on 06.05.1994 and since then the case has travelled widely for more than 23 years - Held that - not even a single bill portraying fictitious sale was located by the investigating team - nothing will come out even on remand when no additional material/evidence is available with the Department and that too after a lapse of considerable period. Hence, in the interest of justice and to put the controversy at rest, by giving benefit of doubt, and, more particularly, when the allegations are not corroborated by supporting documents, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2015 for duty demand and penalty during 1993-1995 period; Remand by Hon'ble High Court; Death of involved individuals; Non-provision of relied upon documents; Upholding of duty and penalty in second round of litigation; Violation of law in penalty imposition; Lack of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal; Failure to collect incriminating evidence; Failure to provide relied upon documents; Differential treatment in appeals; Benefit of doubt and interest of justice in setting aside impugned order. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2015 concerning duty demand and penalty for the period 1993-1995. The Department alleged clandestine removal of goods based on a search conducted in 1994, leading to duty demand and penalty imposition. 2. The matter was remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand following an appeal. The death of involved individuals, non-provision of relied upon documents, and subsequent dismissal of appeals further complicated the case. 3. The counsel for the assessee-Appellants argued that no suppression of production was found, emphasizing discrepancies in registers maintained for loan purposes and lack of evidence from buyers or unaccounted vouchers. 4. The imposition of penalties was challenged citing a violation of law based on a Tribunal's precedent regarding clubbing of clearances. The lack of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal was highlighted. 5. The Department justified the impugned order citing investigations from buyers admitting purchases without proper vouchers. However, the lengthy litigation period and lack of available evidence were noted. 6. The Tribunal observed the absence of incriminating material and failure to collect corroborated evidence for clandestine removal. The unreliability of private registers as sole evidence was emphasized. 7. The Tribunal noted the failure to provide relied upon documents and the lack of additional evidence after a considerable period. The differential treatment in appeals was highlighted, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order in the interest of justice and benefit of doubt. 8. Ultimately, the appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants were allowed, setting aside the confirmed duty and penalties in the second round of litigation. This comprehensive analysis covers the issues, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision in the detailed judgment.
|
