2002 (6) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal filed by Revenue regarding clandestine removal of goods.

Clandestine Removal of Goods: The issue revolved around the clandestine removal of goods, with the Revenue arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove the actual consumption of inputs like essence, bottles, and crown corks. The Revenue contended that the transactions were not bona fide and lacked proper documentation. The Commissioner's finding emphasized the need for packing slips, invoices, transport documents, and delivery challans to prove the actual consumption of inputs. The Revenue asserted that the Commissioner should have concluded that there was clandestine removal of goods based on the available material on record.

Legal Precedents: The Respondents, represented by learned Advocate Shri G. Sivadass, relied on previous Tribunal cases such as Parle Beverages Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I and Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Moon Beverages Ltd. These cases highlighted that the charge of clandestine removal cannot be established based solely on one factor, such as sales figures. Corroborative evidence, including the purchase and utilization of other inputs like sugar and carbon dioxide, is necessary to substantiate the claim of clandestine removal. The Tribunal upheld the dropping of a demand in a similar case due to lack of corroborative evidence and higher electricity consumption.

Decision: After careful consideration, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order. The Commissioner's categorical finding that evidence of actual consumption of inputs is essential to substantiate clandestine removal was upheld. Considering the case law references and the facts of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.