2018 (10) TMI 1058 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - MS Ingots - shortages of the finished goods as also the raw materials - Held that - Revenue in their memo of appeal have again referred to the evidences collected by them during the course of investigations and have not advanced any arguments on the detailed chart prepared by the Commissioner vide which he has compared the 116 entries with the RG-1 entries and have concluded that the same stand mentioned in the statutory records and were cleared on payment of duty. In the absence of any rebuttal to the above finding of Commissioner there is no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against vacation of show cause notice by Commissioner

Analysis:
1. Issue of Fact Finding and Investigations:
The case involves the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner vacating the show cause notice issued to the respondents. The Revenue alleged that the respondents cleared a significant quantity of MS ingots without paying duty, amounting to a substantial sum. The investigations revealed discrepancies in the records maintained by the respondents, leading to the initiation of proceedings against them.

2. Issue of Adjudication and Evidence Evaluation:
During the adjudication process, the appellant contended that the alleged clandestine entries were actually accounted for in the RG-1 register for the relevant period. The adjudicating authority meticulously compared the 116 entries in question with the entries in the RG-1 register and found minor variations but ultimately concluded that the entries matched. Consequently, the adjudicating authority held that no duty demand could be confirmed against the respondents and vacated the proceedings.

3. Issue of Appellate Review and Evidentiary Support:
The Revenue, in their appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, reiterated the evidence collected during investigations but failed to counter the detailed chart prepared by the Commissioner. The Commissioner's comparison of the entries with the RG-1 records showed consistency, indicating that the goods were cleared after payment of duty. As the Revenue did not provide any rebuttal to this crucial finding, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order and subsequently rejected the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to vacate the show cause notice, emphasizing the importance of thorough record-keeping and evidence evaluation in excise duty matters. The judgment highlights the significance of maintaining accurate statutory records to substantiate claims and the need for parties to effectively challenge adverse findings with substantial evidence during appellate proceedings.