2018 (1) TMI 735 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - parallel/forged invoices - debits not made in the statutory records - corroborative evidences - Held that - the First Appellate Authority has not brought on record as to the contents of the delivery challans and the loading memos which would definitely contain the names and addresses of the purchasers - It is the case of the appellant that the lower authorities have not adduced any corroborative evidences of clandestine removal, which seems to be correct, if the delivery challans were there, definitely the departmental officers would have caught hold of at least one of the purchasers (at the minimum) whose name and address would be present on the said challans. In the absence of any corroborative evidences charge of clandestine removal cannot be upheld. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Detection of excisable goods clearance without duty payment, allegations of clandestine removal, demands for duty liability, interest, and penalties, analysis of evidence by appellate authority, absence of corroborative evidence, legal principles regarding confirmation of demands based on statements only.

Analysis:

Detection of excisable goods clearance without duty payment:
The case involved allegations against a company for clearing excisable goods without paying duty, based on intelligence gathered by the Central Excise Department. The officers intercepted a tempo outside the factory premises and found discrepancies in the invoices and statutory records, leading to a Show Cause Notice being issued.

Allegations of clandestine removal and demands for duty liability:
The Show Cause Notice alleged clandestine removal of goods and demanded duty liability, interest, and penalties. The adjudication authority upheld the demands and imposed penalties on the appellants, which were further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority.

Analysis of evidence by appellate authority:
The First Appellate Authority accepted statements from individuals of the appellant's factory and transporters as evidence of clandestine removal. However, it failed to provide details from delivery challans and loading memos containing purchaser information, which could have corroborated the allegations.

Absence of corroborative evidence:
The appellant argued that no corroborative evidence, such as excess purchase of raw materials or unusual consumption of electricity, was presented to support the allegations. The appellate authority did not address these points, leading to a lack of substantial evidence against the appellants.

Legal principles regarding confirmation of demands based on statements only:
The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including judgments from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in cases of clandestine removal. The court ruled that charges based solely on statements without supporting evidence are unsustainable, citing previous cases where demands were set aside due to lack of corroboration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable due to the absence of corroborative evidence and set it aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief for the appellants. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating allegations of clandestine removal with concrete evidence to uphold duty liabilities and penalties.