1995 (8) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the truck driver's statement regarding the loading of goods.
Discrepancy between statements of involved parties regarding the date of loading goods.
Reliability of octroi records in determining the movement of goods.
Validity of the Collector (Appeals) decision to set aside the impugned orders.

Analysis:
The case involved two Appeals arising from the interception of a truck loaded with iron and steel ingots, leading to allegations of clandestine removal by the appellants. The Central Excise Officers issued a show cause notice to explain why the seized goods should not be confiscated and penalties imposed. Statements of involved parties, including managers and the truck driver, were recorded to ascertain the facts.

The Collector (Appeals) set aside the impugned orders, emphasizing the reliance on the truck driver's statement and octroi records. The Collector (Appeals) directed a fresh adjudication, highlighting the need for effective rebuttal of evidence if not acceptable.

The appellants' advocate argued that the statements of involved parties corroborated each other, disputing the Collector (Appeals)' interpretation of the truck driver's statement. The advocate contended that no evidence supported the claim of clandestine removal, while the appellants provided evidence of duty payment and goods clearance.

The JCDR argued that the driver's statement and octroi records indicated goods movement on a specific date, supporting the presumption of clandestine removal. The JCDR suggested the misuse of a Gate Pass to cover goods twice, praying for the rejection of the Appeal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal focused on interpreting the truck driver's statement and reconciling discrepancies in statements of involved parties. The Tribunal considered the investigations conducted, finding no discrepancies in records maintained by the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the goods in question were covered by a specific Gate Pass, leading to the decision that the seizure and confiscation were not legally sustainable.

In light of the findings, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was set aside, and the Appeals were allowed. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all evidence comprehensively and highlighted the need for a thorough investigation to determine the legality of actions taken by the authorities.