2018 (3) TMI 690 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - MS ingots - shortage of raw material and finished goods - Held that - In the absence of any other evidence on record to show that the clandestine activity has been undertaken by the appellant, confirmation of demand of duty is not justified - apart from the weighment slips, there is no further evidence on record to show that the appellant had procured the huge raw material in a clandestine manner and has manufactured their final product which stands cleared by them in a clandestine manner. Mere statements of the Director which is inculpatory in nature cannot be adopted as a ground for upholding the activities of clandestine removal, for which the onus is heavily placed on the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Alleged clandestine clearances of MS ingots, shortages in stock of raw material and finished goods, confirmation of demand, imposition of penalties, lack of evidence supporting clandestine activities.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the appellant, M/s S.R. Ingots Pvt. Ltd., was accused of engaging in clandestine clearances of MS ingots and facing shortages in stock of raw material and finished goods. The officers conducted checks and verifications, leading to the discovery of alleged clandestine clearances totaling 878.285 MT of MS ingots involving duty amounts. The appellant disputed these claims, stating they had their own weighing bridge and trucks used for legitimate transportation. The tribunal noted the lack of substantial evidence beyond weighment slips to prove clandestine activities, emphasizing the burden of proof on the Revenue. The tribunal found the confirmation of duty demand unjustified due to insufficient evidence supporting the allegations.

Regarding the shortages in stock of raw material and finished goods, the tribunal referenced a case law from the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to establish clandestine removals conclusively. In the absence of such evidence, the tribunal held that confirming the duty demand based solely on detected shortages was unwarranted. The tribunal highlighted the importance of independent, cogent, and positive evidence to substantiate allegations of clandestine activities. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing both appeals with consequential relief.

The judgment underscores the significance of substantial evidence in proving allegations of clandestine activities and duty demands. It emphasizes the need for corroborative evidence beyond mere discrepancies in stock or weighment slips to establish clandestine clearances conclusively. The tribunal's decision highlights the importance of upholding the burden of proof on the Revenue to substantiate claims of duty evasion, ensuring a fair and evidence-based adjudication process.