2018 (2) TMI 14 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - SCN was issued alleging that M/s. KTC had sold yarn which was received from the appellant at a higher price than that was mentioned in the Central Excise invoice of the appellant and thus resulted in undervaluation of the yarn - Held that - The main evidence relied by department is the Roker Ledger recovered from M/s. KTC and the statement of Shri R. Pari. The said Roker Ledger was maintained by M/s. KTC only - The Roker Ledger which is a third party document shows only receipt of money by M/s. KTC. There is no evidence to show that the higher price was paid by M/s. KTC to appellant. Needless to say that these are third party documents and have to be corroborated by independent evidence. The adjudicating authority has merely presumed the entries in page 130 also to be genuine and reliable without support of any evidence to show the flow of money from M/s. KTC to appellant. Interestingly M/s. KTC is not a co-noticee to the proceedings. There is no independent evidence forthcoming to connect the appellant with the entries in page 130 of the Roker Ledger - Even though M/s. KTC who is a yarn broker might have received extra consideration or commission, there is no cogent evidence to establish that the appellant have received consideration over and above the invoice value. The material placed before us are insufficient to hold that the appellants have received higher consideration as alleged by the department - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Allegation of undervaluation leading to evasion of excise duty based on third-party documents.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, the appellant, a manufacturer of viscose staple fibre yarn, was alleged to have evaded payment of excise duty by receiving a higher price than that mentioned in the Central Excise invoice while clearing the yarn. The main evidence relied upon by the department was the Roker Ledger recovered from a third party, M/s. KTC, and the statement of a director. The appellant argued that they did not receive any amount over and above the invoice value and that the accounts maintained by them matched the invoice details shown in the ledger of M/s. KTC, highlighting a lack of discrepancy. The department contended that the ledger entries indicated that the appellant received higher value from customers through M/s. KTC. The tribunal noted that the ledger was a third-party document and needed corroboration by independent evidence. The appellate authority upheld the demand based on the ledger and director's statement without sufficient evidence linking the appellant to the alleged undervaluation.

The tribunal analyzed the findings of the lower authorities, where it was observed that the ledger maintained by M/s. KTC tallied with the appellant's invoice details, leading to the presumption of authenticity of the ledger entries. However, the tribunal emphasized that there was no direct evidence showing the flow of money from M/s. KTC to the appellant, and the reliance on the director's statement was selective. The tribunal cited a precedent emphasizing the need for positive evidence linking third-party documents to the assessee to prove clandestine activities. Ultimately, the tribunal found the evidence insufficient to establish that the appellant received higher consideration as alleged by the department. Relying on previous court decisions, the tribunal concluded that a demand cannot solely be based on third-party documents or statements. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the scrutiny of evidence, the importance of corroborative proof, and the necessity for a direct link between allegations and the party accused of evasion. The tribunal's decision highlights the legal principle that demands must be supported by concrete evidence directly implicating the party in question, especially in cases involving third-party documents.