2018 (3) TMI 1379 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - interception of vehicle at midnight of 23.08.2003 regarding transportation of impugned goods without invoice/bill and without payment of duty - Held that - The Department in this case, had not produced any cogent, tangible and convincing evidence in support of clandestine removal of goods and as such, the adjudged demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of mere assumptions and presumptions. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded detailed findings with regard to setting aside of the adjudication order, so far as it confirmed the duty liability and imposed penalty on the respondent. Since, the said order was passed based on the available records and evidences; I am of the view that the findings recorded therein cannot be disturbed at this juncture, in absence of any plausible evidence being produced by Revenue to sustain the charges of clandestine removal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods without payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods by the appellant without payment of duty. The appellant was engaged in manufacturing goods such as Gutkha, Pan Masala, and Metha Masala. The Central Excise officers intercepted a vehicle loaded with Gutkha and seized goods valued at ?6,08,400 under suspicion of being unaccounted for. Further investigations revealed more seized goods and statements from individuals admitting to the removal of goods without proper documentation and duty payment.

2. The Adjudication Order confiscated goods valued at ?290,17,080 and imposed fines and penalties on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the confiscation but set aside the duty demand and penalty due to insufficient evidence of clandestine removal. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal challenging this decision.

3. The Revenue argued that the interception of the vehicle and statements from involved parties corroborated the clandestine removal of goods without proper documentation or duty payment. They contended that the evidence provided by the Department established the clandestine removal beyond doubt.

4. The respondent's advocate raised procedural issues, citing the absence of a formal review order by the Committee of Commissioners as grounds for the Revenue's appeal not being maintainable. On the merits, they argued that since the Commissioner (Appeals) found no substantiation for the charges of clandestine removal, the appeal lacked merit.

5. The Tribunal examined the case records, noting the approval by the Committee for filing the appeal. Referring to a relevant judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal could not be discarded solely based on procedural grounds if the Committee decided to file it based on available records.

6. In the detailed analysis of the case, the Tribunal found that the retractions made by the respondent and other crucial aspects were not adequately considered by the Original Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly dropped the duty demand and penalty based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the charges of clandestine removal. The Tribunal emphasized the absence of material evidence to prove the appellant's involvement in clandestine activities, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to drop the duty demand and penalty against the appellant, as the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges of clandestine removal. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the impugned order.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, procedural considerations, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.