2019 (8) TMI 1291 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - shortages of final materials as well as raw materials - revenue s case is based upon the consumption of electricity read with the said loose documents and computer printouts - detailed references to the statements produced is not made - HELD THAT - It is seen that the identical proceedings initiated in respect of the same appellants resulting in confirmation of demands of more than ₹ 10 crores were considered by the Tribunal in KAMAL SPONGE STEEL POWER LTD., PAWAN JEET SINGH DIRECTOR OF, ANIL SHARMA GM OF, KAMAL JEET SINGH DIRECTOR OF, KARAN PAL SINGH CHAIRMAN OF, RAKESH BHATNAGAR EX MANAGER OF VERSUS CCE ST, INDORE 2019 (1) TMI 1165 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the entire evidence produced by the Revenue was considered and appreciated and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that allegations of clandestine removal, primarily based upon the consumption of electricity read with the statements and the computer printouts, are not proved and accordingly the order was set aside. Inasmuch as the present impugned order is also a part of the same set of investigations, same evidences and identical proceedings, present appeal order also set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation against M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd.
2. Imposition of penalty on individuals associated with the company.
3. Allegations of clandestine removal based on evidence.
4. Consideration of previous Tribunal decision in a similar case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the confirmation of duty demand amounting to ?17,30,559 against M/s Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. The lower Authorities had confirmed this demand along with interest and an equal penalty. The Tribunal, in a common order for multiple appeals arising from the same impugned order, reviewed the case.

2. Apart from the duty demand on the company, penalties of ?50,000 each were imposed on Shri Karan Pal Singh, Chairman of the company, and on Shri Pawan Jeet Singh, Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, and Shri Anil Sharma, who held positions as Directors and General Manager. The Tribunal considered these penalties as part of the overall decision.

3. The case involved allegations of clandestine removal based on evidence gathered during visits and investigations at the company's factory. Statements of individuals admitting shortages, along with recovered computer-generated and written documents, were used by the Revenue to support their claim of clandestine activities. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue's case primarily relied on electricity consumption data, statements, and computer printouts.

4. Notably, the Tribunal referenced a previous Final Order where similar allegations of clandestine removal against the same appellants were considered. In that case, the Tribunal had concluded that the allegations were not proven based on the evidence presented. Considering the similarity in evidence and proceedings, the Tribunal in this judgment followed the previous decision and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including duty demand confirmation, penalty imposition, evaluation of evidence regarding clandestine removal, and the impact of a previous Tribunal decision on the present case.