2010 (3) TMI 159 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the octroi receipts without any other evidence could not form the basis of clandestine removal of the exciseable goods from the factory? Held that Tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner(appeal) holding that no reliance could be placed on the octroi receipts which do not contain any iota of evidence that the material mentioned therein had been cleared/sold by the assessee. The receipts only depict the description of the goods and vehicle number but do not establish by any evidence that these octroi receipts relate to the assessee as it did not contain any reference to their name or their bill number. It has further been held that no enquiry was made by the Revenue from the Octroi Post Authorities as to how and on what basis octroi receipts were issued and therefore the charges against the dealer-assessee remained unsubstantiated. - These are pure findings of fact. There is no connecting evidence on record to show that the octroi receipts could be connected to the assessee as these octroi receipts do not contain any reference to their name or bill numbers. There is thus no merit in this reference and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the evidentiary value of octroi receipts in establishing clandestine removal of exciseable goods.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the evidentiary value of octroi receipts in establishing clandestine removal of exciseable goods. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal had upheld an order holding that reliance could not be placed on octroi receipts as they lacked evidence connecting the goods to the assessee. The Tribunal questioned whether octroi receipts alone could form the basis of proving clandestine removal of goods from the factory.

The High Court, after considering the arguments, concluded that the findings of fact by the Commissioner and the Tribunal were legally sound and did not warrant interference. The Court emphasized that the octroi receipts lacked any connecting evidence to establish a link to the assessee, as they did not contain references to the assessee's name or bill numbers. Therefore, the Court dismissed the reference, stating that there was no merit in the argument that octroi receipts alone could prove clandestine removal of goods.

In essence, the judgment highlights the importance of establishing a clear link between documentary evidence, such as octroi receipts, and the party accused of wrongdoing. Without such a connection, the evidentiary value of documents in proving clandestine activities becomes questionable. The decision underscores the significance of concrete evidence in legal proceedings and the need for a strong factual basis to support allegations of misconduct.