2003 (1) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Cement manufactured by M/s. Chariot Cement Company was cleared without payment of Central Excise duty.
2. Validity of evidence and allegations regarding dispatches to various parties.
3. Consideration of documentary evidence and legal precedents.

Summary:

1. Whether the Cement manufactured by M/s. Chariot Cement Company was cleared without payment of Central Excise duty:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether M/s. Chariot Cement Company cleared cement from their factory without paying Central Excise duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise demanded duty based on Railway Receipts (RRs) indicating dispatches to various parties without recording them in statutory records.

2. Validity of evidence and allegations regarding dispatches to various parties:
- Dispatches to M/s. City Developers: The appellants argued that the cement was neither manufactured nor cleared by them but was loaded by M/s. City Developers using the available space in the Railway rake allotted to the appellants. They provided certificates and commercial invoices to support their claim. The Commissioner dismissed these documents as "after-thought" without proper investigation.
- Dispatches to M/s. Arun Distributors: The appellants claimed that the cement was dispatched by M/s. Kanak Cement Pvt. Ltd., who used the appellants' allotted container wagons. They submitted commercial invoices and certificates from Kanak Cement. The Commissioner found it difficult to correlate these documents with the RRs.
- Dispatches to M/s. Vinod Kumar & Co.: The appellants contended that the cement was cleared by M/s. Vedvyas Cement Works P. Ltd. and they only permitted the use of their allotted wagons. They provided commercial and Central Excise invoices along with certificates from Vedvyas Cement.
- Dispatches to Dimapur: The appellants argued that they never had a depot or business at Dimapur and the RRs showing "Chariot" as consignor were not theirs. They provided certificates and affidavits to support their claim. The Commissioner concluded that the appellants' factory's proximity to the railway station implied their involvement in the dispatches.

3. Consideration of documentary evidence and legal precedents:
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner did not adequately consider the appellants' documentary evidence and legal precedents. The appellants cited several decisions emphasizing that charges of clandestine removal must be proved beyond doubt with affirmative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner failed to provide a reasoned and speaking order, disregarding the appellants' submissions and documentary evidence.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal, by majority, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals. It concluded that the Commissioner did not properly evaluate the evidence and legal precedents, and the demand of duty was based on assumptions and presumptions without sufficient corroborative evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasoned and speaking order and found no justification for remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority.