2000 (10) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Duty demand u/s 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, reliance on private register entries, challenge to notice period extension, reliability of private notebook as evidence, clubbing clearances for Notification benefit.

Summary:
1. The appeals arose from an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand from M/s. Rajkumar Match Industries for alleged clandestine removals during specific periods u/s 11A(2) of Central Excise Act.
2. The case against the appellants involved discrepancies in registers leading to duty demands, with reliance on a private register maintained by a worker and statements from a private employee.
3. Appellants contested the reliance on private documents and challenged the notice period extension, but the Commissioner confirmed demands based on the private register and rejected time bar plea.
4. Despite appellants' arguments on the reliability of the private notebook, the Tribunal referred to precedents like Kashmir Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. to emphasize the need for corroborative evidence in cases of clandestine removal.
5. The Tribunal considered the lack of additional evidence beyond the private notebook entries and upheld the appellants' argument, citing various judgments supporting their case.
6. Referring to multiple cases involving clandestine removal allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the private notebook alone was insufficient to confirm clandestine removal, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

This comprehensive summary highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal precedents cited in the judgment.