2003 (9) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, penalty, and confiscation of goods.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against an Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, penalty, and confiscation of goods. The company, engaged in embroidery, faced allegations of running 9 machines instead of the declared one. The evidence relied upon included attendance, night report, and generator running registers. However, doubts arose regarding the resumption of these registers and the accuracy of entries. The security staff maintained these registers, and their connection to the company was not established. The oral evidence, including statements of employees, lacked corroboration and credibility. The Managing Director's statements were retracted, alleging coercion. The lack of tangible evidence to prove the allegations led to the impugned order being set aside.

The impugned order was challenged based on insufficient evidence to prove duty evasion. The reliance on registers and oral statements lacked credibility and corroboration. The absence of panchanama during register resumption raised doubts. The night record register entries were questionable, and the generator running register did not conclusively prove the alleged machine operation. The Managing Director's retracted statements, along with employee statements, lacked credibility without cross-examination. The absence of evidence on fabric supply, job work, electricity consumption, and reliance on assumptions led to the order being set aside.

The lack of concrete evidence to substantiate duty evasion allegations was a key factor in setting aside the impugned order. The reliance on registers and oral statements without corroboration or credibility undermined the case against the appellants. The absence of proof regarding fabric supply, job work, and electricity consumption further weakened the case. The legal principle that assumptions cannot replace positive evidence was emphasized in overturning the order. The insufficiency of evidence to support duty evasion allegations rendered the impugned order legally unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeals with consequential relief, if any.