2018 (3) TMI 752 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - shortage of goods - Department s claimed that documents have been submitted to show that the goods had been cleared clandestinely, is blank statement as no evidence has been adduced - Held that - all the submissions made by both appellants are afterthoughts as the same does not rebut charges of clandestine removal which is based on the documentary evidence - The concern person Shri. Jayesh Jain Director of the M/s. Sarvodaya also admitted the allegation made in the show cause notice. Merely denial of the statements at the time of filing reply is not sufficient to discard the statements - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of excise duty, penalty, interest, and personal penalty on grounds of clandestine clearance.

Analysis:
The appellants failed to appear for multiple hearing dates, leading to disposal based on available records. They argued that the impugned order lacked proper hearing opportunities and evidence of clandestine clearance was unsubstantiated. The appellants contested the allegations, emphasizing the absence of incriminating evidence, the substantial quantity of yarn involved, and the lack of proof for clandestine removal. They also disputed specific allegations regarding the supply of dyed yarn to another entity. The appellants highlighted discrepancies in the investigation and production capacity to refute the charges.

Analysis:
The Revenue, represented by Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, supported the findings of the impugned order, reiterating the evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal examined the submissions from both sides and reviewed the records. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities confirmed clandestine removal based on various documents and statements. Evidence from the search of related premises and statements from involved individuals supported the findings of clandestine removal. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants' arguments were insufficient to counter the documented evidence of clandestine activities. The acknowledgment of allegations by the concerned parties further strengthened the case against the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the demand of excise duty, penalty, interest, and personal penalty on the appellants for clandestine clearance based on substantial documentary evidence and statements from involved parties. Despite the appellants' challenges and arguments, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' findings, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.