2023 (8) TMI 1536 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - differential value between the figures mentioned in return and balance sheet - period from January 2007 to February 2010 - HELD THAT - Firstly, there is no direct evidence of clandestine removal such as transportation, recipient of goods, receipt of consideration etc. However, the difference between the balance sheet and ER-1 returns need to be explained as per the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority. On going through various documents such as balance sheet, ledger, chartered accountant certificate, we find that the appellant have claimed that there is no clandestine removal, hence, there is force in the said submission of the appellant. However, it is observed that the Adjudicating Authority has not properly verified such documents whereby the appellant have explained the difference between the sales figure shown in balance sheet and ER-1. The matter needs to be re- considered as a whole on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh de novo order within a period of two months from the date of this order.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD reviewed a case involving alleged clandestine removal of goods by an appellant engaged in manufacturing steel articles. The appellant disputed the allegations, providing explanations supported by financial documents. The Tribunal found no direct evidence of clandestine removal and remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision within two months.