2018 (4) TMI 719 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine Removal - shortage of sponge iron - it appeared to Revenue that appellant surreptitiously procured the aforementioned quantity of sponge iron from AIPL without cover of valid Central Excise invoices and used the same for unaccounted production of ingots and thereafter removed the same clandestinely during the period September, 2010 to December 2010. Held that - allegations are based on statement of Director of AIPL, statement of transporters, whole case is made out against the appellant. There is no documents recovered from AIPL wherein it is stated that goods were cleared to the appellants. Further in the course of inquiry at the end of appellant, no such corroboration of receipt of alleged sponge iron was found. Neither the Director of AIPL nor the transporters were examined in the adjudication proceedings, relating to the present case. There is no evidence worthwhile against the appellant except assumption and presumptions by the Revenue - demand is hit by the provision of section 9D of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the demand of ?10,16,037/- along with equal penalty on alleged clandestine removal is justified.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS ingots, was alleged to have clandestinely procured sponge iron from a supplier without valid invoices and used it for unaccounted production and removal of ingots.
2. Investigations revealed incriminating documents seized from the supplier's premises, indicating transport of sponge iron to the appellant's factory without proper records in the appellant's purchase register.
3. The authorized signatory of the appellant admitted to purchasing sponge iron without duty payment but denied receiving the impugned quantity from the supplier.
4. The appellant denied the allegations in the show cause notice, but the demand was confirmed, penalties imposed, and the appeal dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. The appellant contended that the Revenue's case relied on assumptions and third-party statements without concrete evidence linking them to the alleged clandestine removal.
6. The Tribunal found the Revenue failed to establish the clandestine manufacture and removal of ingots by the appellant, lacking evidence on raw material procurement, sales, or buyers.
7. The extended period of limitation invoked for issuing the show cause notice after over 12 months since the initial investigation was also challenged by the appellant.
8. The Revenue relied on a previous case to support its findings, emphasizing the prejudicial impact on Revenue due to fraudulent activities.
9. The Tribunal concluded that the case against the appellant was based on assumptions and presumptions, lacking substantial evidence linking them to the alleged clandestine activities.
10. The Tribunal held the show cause notice as not maintainable, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key legal issues, factual findings, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.