2003 (11) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Evidence - HELD THAT - On a careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, I note that the case has been built on the basis of the seized notebook and the file. There is no evidence of the assessee committing the offence of removal of goods clandestinely. There is no evidence of use of inputs to prove that there was manufacture of product. There is no evidence of clearance of final goods without payment of duty. There is no statement to show as to from whom the appellant purchased the raw material and there is no evidence of use of electricity, receipt of sale consideration to prove the event of manufacture and clearance of goods clandestinely. In the absence of evidence, the Commissioner was justified in setting aside the Order-in-Original. Similarly, the entries in the notebook or details contained in the file is not sufficient to prove the charge of clandestine removal as noted in several judgments of the Tribunal relied by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order is legal, proper and a correct one. There is no evidence available to sustain the charge. Therefore, there is no merit in the Revenue appeal and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Revenue's appeal against setting aside of Order-in-Original due to lack of evidence proving clandestine involvement.

Summary:
The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original as the Revenue failed to prove charges of clandestine involvement. The appellant argued that the seized notebook contained details of clandestine removal, but the Tribunal found no concrete evidence of clandestine removal, manufacturing, or clearance of goods without duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish such charges. The Commissioner's decision to set aside the order was deemed legal and correct, as there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete evidence in proving charges of clandestine involvement, manufacturing, and sale of goods without duty payment. The absence of evidence regarding the use of inputs, clearance of final goods without duty payment, purchase of raw materials, and use of electricity weakened the Revenue's case. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support such charges. The Commissioner's decision to set aside the Order-in-Original was upheld based on the lack of evidence to sustain the allegations. The Revenue's appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed.