2002 (1) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty for shortages and non-maintenance of F-4 Registers.
2. Clandestine removal and quantum of duty based on a seized notebook.
3. Examination of evidence and corroborative proof.

Summary:

1. Penalty for shortages and non-maintenance of F-4 Registers:
The CEGAT had previously confirmed penalties on the firm for shortages found in the premises and for non-maintenance of F-4 Registers. The penalty on the partner, Shri Rajagopal, was also confirmed for these reasons.

2. Clandestine removal and quantum of duty based on a seized notebook:
The matter was remanded for de novo consideration regarding the clandestine removal and the quantum of duty confirmed based on a single notebook recovered from the appellants' premises. The Commissioner re-confirmed the demands despite the notebook's scribe not being examined. The Commissioner noted that the Accountant who maintained the notebooks could not be contacted as he had left the service and his whereabouts were unknown. The appellants argued that the notebook was for salary disbursement, but the Commissioner found this interpretation unconvincing.

3. Examination of evidence and corroborative proof:
The Commissioner dismissed the appellants' plea that they were unaware of the notebook until the inspection, stating that the notebook was recovered under a mahazar drawn before independent witnesses. The appellants contended that the production of fireworks worth Rs. 1.09 crores was impossible without sufficient funds and regulatory oversight. The Commissioner countered that the production spanned a long period and the accounting system was unreliable. The Commissioner also dismissed the need for corroborative evidence from transporters and insurance companies, stating that clandestine removal is inherently secretive.

The Tribunal observed that the findings were based on presumptions and assumptions. It emphasized that the Revenue must corroborate the entries in the seized notebook with other evidence, such as the purchase of raw materials, manufacture, sale, and receipt of funds. The non-examination of the Accountant, who was present during the raid, rendered the notebook inadmissible. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to prove the purchase of raw materials and the manufacture of fireworks without proper protection and insurance. The absence of corroborative evidence regarding the sale and transportation of the goods weakened the Revenue's case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the demands and penalties were based solely on the seized notebook, which was not corroborated by other evidence. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.