2018 (5) TMI 97 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - It is the submission of appellant that except for the recovery of the diary and the statement of the individual from the factory of the main appellant there is no corroborative evidences - Held that - In the absence of any corroborative evidences that supports the allegation of clandestine removal relying only on statements of the managing director for confirmation of demand is not in consonance of law - a similar situation came in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Tara Chand Narash Chand 2018 (1) TMI 209 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT wherein it was held that only on the basis of statement the case cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Contesting Orders-in-Appeal, Allegation of clandestine removal of goods, Reliance on statements and diary as evidence, Lack of corroborative evidence, Factual aspect of the case, Unaccounted purchase of raw materials, Judgment of High Court of Rajasthan, Sustainability of impugned order.

Analysis:
The judgment involves three appeals contesting Orders-in-Appeal regarding the alleged clandestine removal of M.G. Kraft paper from factory premises. The investigation revealed statements and shortage of inputs, leading to a demand for duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands, penalties, and confiscation, which were partially upheld by the First Appellate Authority.

Upon review, the Learned Counsel argued that the reliance on a diary and statements without corroborative evidence is insufficient. He highlighted that buyers denied purchasing goods without proper documents, questioning the reliability of the diary. Citing a recent High Court judgment, the Counsel emphasized the need for more than statements to sustain the case.

The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' findings, but upon careful consideration, the Member found the case lacked factual support. The statements of buyers did not confirm receipt of goods without documentation, and no further investigation established unaccounted raw material purchases or unusual utility consumption. Referring to precedent judgments, the Member emphasized the necessity of manufacturing on the premises for clandestine removal allegations.

Relying on the Counsel's arguments and High Court precedents, the Member concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable. Due to the absence of corroborative evidence, relying solely on statements for demand confirmation was deemed legally inadequate. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of factual evidence and corroborative support in cases of alleged clandestine removal. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive investigation and legal substantiation beyond mere statements to uphold duty demands and penalties. The decision aligns with established legal principles and precedents, ensuring a fair and lawful resolution in matters of indirect taxation.