2018 (5) TMI 768 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - validity of statement of Shri Manoj Sharma - summon issued u/s 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - On perusal of the statement of Shri Manoj Sharma, it reveals that he had never retracted such statement and did not contest the issue, stating that such statement was recorded under any duress or pressure - Since the statement is a voluntary one, furnished by the responsible authorised officer of the assessee-appellant, the charges levelled against the appellant in the original as well as the impugned order can be sustained - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of Central Excise duty demand based on stock shortage and statement of General Manager.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a Central Excise duty demand of ?2,01,061/- along with interest and imposing an equal amount of penalty on the appellant. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS ingots and TMT Bar, challenged the duty demand, arguing that the stock taking method used by the Department was not proper as it was based on eye estimation/sample basis. The appellant's General Manager had accepted the method of stock taking and agreed to deposit the duty amount on the shortage quantity of raw-material and finished goods detected during the investigation. The appellant contended that the duty demand could not be confirmed based on the assumption of clandestine removal of goods. The Revenue, on the other hand, relied on the General Manager's statement and argued that since he did not retract his statement, the duty demand could be upheld.

The impugned order recorded the statement of the General Manager, wherein he acknowledged the stock details found, shortage detected, and duty calculation method during the search operation. The General Manager agreed with the conclusions drawn regarding the shortages noticed and voluntarily paid the duty amount. The Tribunal noted that the General Manager did not contest the statement or claim it was recorded under duress. Considering the voluntary nature of the statement and the responsibilities of the General Manager, the Tribunal upheld the charges against the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confirmation of Central Excise duty demand based on the stock shortage and the voluntary statement of the appellant's General Manager. The Tribunal found that the General Manager's statement, acknowledging the discrepancies and agreeing to deposit the duty, was valid and could be relied upon to support the duty demand. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld based on the findings regarding the General Manager's statement and actions during the investigation.