2018 (3) TMI 1378 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - excess stock of 48.870 M.T. of raw-material i.e. bloom/billet and 28.578 M.T. of finished products namely, MS Tubes - Held that - the Department has not specifically brought out any evidence of fact of clandestine removal of goods, with the help of any tangible evidence - the onus lies on the Department to prove clandestine removal of goods having not been satisfied/ fulfilled in this case, the charges levelled against the appellant cannot be sustained in the eyes of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Alleged clandestine manufacture of goods, excess stock of raw-material and finished products, duty demand, confiscation, penalty imposition, appeal against adjudication order.

In this case, the appellant, engaged in manufacturing various products falling under Chapter 72-73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, faced allegations of clandestine manufacture of goods based on discrepancies in stock during a Department visit. The Department found excess stock of raw-material and finished products, along with a shortage in the stock of finished products. Consequently, show cause proceedings were initiated, leading to a Central Excise duty demand and confiscation of goods. The appellant challenged the adjudication order, claiming discrepancies in the Panchnama preparation and lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal charges.

The appellant argued that the Panchnama was improperly drawn, lacking details on stock verification methods, and the physical verification report was unsigned. The appellant contended that without proper evidence of clandestine removal, the duty demand could not be upheld. Conversely, the Revenue argued that the appellant's explanation lacked documentary support, and the accepted discrepancies in stock could not be altered later. The Revenue also highlighted the appellant's unretracted statement recorded during summons.

Upon review, the Tribunal found the unsigned statement and unanswered discrepancy clarification letter raised doubts on the clandestine removal allegations. The Director's statement explaining stock differences was disregarded in the adjudication and appeal orders. The Tribunal emphasized the Department's failure to provide tangible evidence of clandestine removal, shifting the burden of proof to the Department. Consequently, the charges against the appellant were deemed unsustainable in the absence of conclusive evidence.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to the lack of merit. The appeal was allowed, highlighting the insufficiency of evidence to substantiate the allegations of clandestine removal of goods, leading to the dismissal of duty demands and confiscation.