2010 (1) TMI 474 - HC - Central Excise

Question of law - Whether statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had sufficient evidentiary value to prove the clandestine removal of goods? . Held that - finding of fact by Tribunal holding sufficient material lacking to prove allegation. Substantial question of law not arises. Amount sought to be recovered too meager. No merit in appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order setting aside demand for duty payment on allegedly clandestinely removed goods.

Analysis:
The High Court dealt with an appeal challenging a Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order setting aside a demand raised by the Revenue on the grounds of clandestine removal of goods by the respondent, a footwear manufacturer. The Revenue contended that the respondent removed branded footwear without paying duty, as revealed during a physical stock verification. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of clandestine removal and highlighted the absence of necessary permissions for such removals. The Tribunal questioned the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the lack of substantial material to prove clandestine removal. The Tribunal also noted the trivial amount sought to be recovered, which was only Rs. 85,594.

The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's findings and concluded that as a factual determination had been made, supported by the lack of substantial evidence for clandestine removal, no significant legal question arose for consideration in the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the Tribunal's decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantial evidence and legal requirements for proving clandestine removal of goods, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Revenue's demand for duty payment.