2018 (5) TMI 95 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - demand based on statements of the buyers which was not retracted immediately, but was retracted subsequently - Held that - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus OMKAR TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD. 2010 (8) TMI 322 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that Demand cannot be raised merely based on statement retracted later without any corroborative material - demand withheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against the order setting aside duty demand, interest, and penalties without considering factual aspects.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the order setting aside duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the respondents without considering the factual aspects of the case. The Revenue argued that the respondent had clandestinely cleared finished goods, as evidenced by statements from buyers indicating receipt of goods without duty payment and purchases of raw material not recorded in the books. The Revenue contended that the buyers' statements were retracted only after the show cause notice was filed, and suppliers stated they did not supply material without a bill. The Revenue claimed that a holistic view of the case suggested the respondent's involvement in clandestine removal of goods.

The First Appellate Authority's findings were examined, which followed established legal principles set by the High Court and Tribunal. The Authority noted the lack of documentary evidence regarding raw material purchases without bills, sales of finished goods without bills, excess quantities, discrepancies in records, or seizures of materials. No evidence of excess manpower, electricity consumption, or payments was found. The Department failed to produce corroborative evidence, leading the Authority to conclude that duty cannot be demanded solely based on retracted confessional statements. The Authority also highlighted that statements from suppliers denying supplying material without bills were not discussed in the show cause notice.

The First Appellate Authority relied on precedents, including the case of Omkar Textile Mills Pvt Ltd, to support its decision. The Authority's analysis of the law and facts was deemed correct, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The impugned order was considered legally sound and did not warrant any interference. Additionally, the cross objection filed by the respondent in support of the Original Impugned Order was also disposed of during the proceedings.