2018 (6) TMI 1338 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Gutkha - there has been an allegation that the Original Authority did not appreciate the contentions of show cause notice - principles of Natural Justice - Held that - The findings by the Original Authority are reasoned and on the basis of examination of evidences produced before him on the basis which the show cause notice was issued and we do not find any ground raised by Revenue satisfactorily contends non-sustainability of findings by the Original Authority - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Decoding of codes used for transportation of gutkha.
2. Reliability of statements and evidence.
3. Corroboration of evidence regarding unaccounted transportation.
4. Evidence of unaccounted procurement of raw materials.
5. Evaluation of production capacity and production records.
6. Reliance on private records maintained by third parties.
7. Legal precedents and corroborative evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Decoding of Codes Used for Transportation of Gutkha:
The Revenue challenged the decoding of codes used for transportation, asserting that the code "CP Goods" referred to Tiranga brand gutkha, not Shikhar brand. The Adjudicating Authority did not accept this decoding, leading to the dismissal of the demand based on these codes. The Revenue argued that the decoding was based on statements from Shri Uma Shanker Awasthi, who clarified that "CP Goods" referred to Tiranga brand gutkha, while Shikhar brand gutkha was transported to various places in Bihar.

2. Reliability of Statements and Evidence:
The Revenue contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the reliability of statements from key individuals like Shri Uma Shanker Awasthi and Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, who provided detailed accounts of unaccounted transportation. The Revenue argued that corrections in statements did not render them entirely unreliable. The Adjudicating Authority, however, found inconsistencies and memory-based statements insufficient to uphold the demand.

3. Corroboration of Evidence Regarding Unaccounted Transportation:
The Revenue emphasized that statements from transport company officials and private records like the 'Private Diary Pad,' 'JST Slips,' and 'Loading Registers' provided systematic details of unaccounted transportation of Shikhar gutkha. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed these as uncorroborated by independent evidence, leading to the dropping of demands based on these records.

4. Evidence of Unaccounted Procurement of Raw Materials:
The Revenue argued that statements from suppliers of packaging materials, tobacco, and supari indicated unaccounted procurement by the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority found no concrete evidence of unaccounted raw materials, noting discrepancies in stock records and statements. The Revenue contended that unaccounted procurement was evident from cash transactions and the absence of documented purchases.

5. Evaluation of Production Capacity and Production Records:
The Revenue challenged the Adjudicating Authority's assessment of production capacity, arguing that even with reduced working hours and machine speeds, significant unrecorded production was evident. The Adjudicating Authority's reliance on lower machine speeds and working hours led to the dismissal of demands based on production capacity discrepancies.

6. Reliance on Private Records Maintained by Third Parties:
The Revenue argued that private records maintained by the transport company provided sufficient evidence of unaccounted transportation. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed these records as unreliable without corroborative evidence. The Revenue cited legal precedents supporting the use of private records in establishing clandestine activities.

7. Legal Precedents and Corroborative Evidence:
The Revenue cited several legal precedents to support their case, arguing that corroborative evidence from private records and statements should be sufficient to establish clandestine removal. The Adjudicating Authority distinguished these cases, finding the evidence in the present case insufficiently corroborated.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority's findings reasoned and based on a detailed examination of evidence, concluding that the Revenue failed to satisfactorily challenge these findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to consequential relief as per law.

← Previous Next →