2010 (7) TMI 170 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - According to the appellant, Anti Static Oil used in the manufacture of polyester texturised yarn increases the weight of the finished product vis-a-vis raw materials used, whereas actual clearances made by the respondents was equal to the weight of the raw materials consumed, leading to the conclusion that the differential quantity equivalent to the weight of the Anti Static Oil has been cleared without payment of Central Excise Duty. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 15.06.2005 confirmed the duty demand with interest against the respondent unit and levied penalty on all the respondents. Against the said order, the respondents preferred appeals before the Tribunal which came to be allowed vide the impugned order. Held that- facts and evidences taken into consideration by Tribunal to hold no evidence to prove clandestine removal. Impugned order sustainable.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenging consolidated order by the Tribunal
- Allegations of illicit removal of goods without payment of duties
- Setting aside imposition of penalties
- Lack of corroborative evidence by the Revenue
- Consideration of technical opinion by the Tribunal
- Admissibility of confessional statements
- Dismissal of appeals based on lack of substantial legal error

Detailed Analysis:

Challenging Tribunal's Order:
The appellant revenue challenged a consolidated order made by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The order raised questions regarding the substantial errors of law in allowing the respondent's appeal and providing consequential reliefs. The issues included illicit removal of polyester texturised yarn without proper documentation and duty payment, as well as the setting aside of penalties imposed on the respondents.

Allegations of Illicit Removal:
The case involved allegations of illicit removal of polyester texturised yarn by the respondents without entering the goods in Central Excise records, using Central Excise Invoices, or paying the required duties. The Revenue claimed that the respondents had cleared goods without fulfilling duty obligations, leading to duty demands, interest, and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority.

Lack of Corroborative Evidence:
The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence to support the allegations of clandestine removal against the respondents. Despite confessional statements and admissions, the Tribunal noted a lack of additional evidence to substantiate the claims. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Commissioner did not adequately consider the technical opinion presented by the respondents.

Consideration of Technical Opinion:
The Tribunal considered the technical opinion submitted by the respondents, which suggested that the Anti Static Oil used in the manufacturing process gets removed during dyeing and twisting, leading to no evasion of duty. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering technical expertise in evaluating the allegations against the respondents.

Admissibility of Confessional Statements:
The confessional statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act were considered as evidence, but the Tribunal required additional corroborative evidence to support the Revenue's claims of clandestine removal. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented and the lack of substantial proof beyond the confessional statements.

Dismissal of Appeals:
After a thorough review of the evidence and legal arguments, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the Revenue, concluding that there was no substantial legal error warranting interference with the Tribunal's order. The lack of sufficient evidence and failure to prove clandestine removal led to the dismissal of the appeals.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the High Court of Gujarat highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the allegations of illicit removal of goods and the imposition of penalties.