2002 (11) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of cotton yarns based on discrepancies in production slips and gate pass records.

In this case, the appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal confirming demands on the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of cotton yarns. The officers found discrepancies between the figures of cotton yarn production in the production slips and the gate pass records on certain dates. However, physical verification of stock showed no irregularities, and consignees confirmed the genuineness of the invoices. The appellant argued that the production slips were maintained by illiterate staff without proper signatures, and the gate out register was inadequately maintained. Both authorities acknowledged the lack of evidence beyond these discrepancies to support the allegations. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing that private registers alone are insufficient to prove clandestine activities. The Managing Director provided a detailed explanation for the discrepancies, which was deemed acceptable. Since no other evidence of excess production or sale without duty payment was found, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, concluding that the two pieces of evidence were inadequate to establish clandestine activities, thereby allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In analyzing the issues, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence beyond discrepancies in production records to establish clandestine activities. The case law cited emphasized the insufficiency of private registers as conclusive proof without additional supporting evidence. The Tribunal considered the explanations provided by the appellant regarding the maintenance of production slips and gate out register by illiterate staff, underscoring the need for thorough examination of evidence in such cases. The lack of evidence regarding excess raw materials, production, or sales without duty payment further weakened the case against the appellant. By setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence to substantiate allegations of clandestine activities, reinforcing the principle that mere discrepancies in records are insufficient grounds for confirming such allegations.