1997 (4) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Shortage of Steel Ingots and Runners/Risers.
2. Seizure of Pocket Ledgers and Loose Papers.
3. Allegation of Clandestine Manufacture and Clearance.
4. Time-barred Demand.

Summary:

1. Shortage of Steel Ingots and Runners/Risers:
The Tribunal found that the alleged shortage of 19.735 MTs of steel ingots and 3.450 MTs of steel runners and risers was not based on physical verification but merely on estimation. The presence of different quantities of scrap and the deposition of the panch witness during cross-examination, who stated that not even a random check was conducted, supported the appellants' contention that the shortage was not substantiated by material facts. The statement of Shri S.K. Garg, which was retracted at the earliest opportunity, could not form the sole basis for the conclusion of shortage without corroborative evidence. Therefore, the findings of the adjudicating authority on this point were set aside.

2. Seizure of Pocket Ledgers and Loose Papers:
The Tribunal examined the pocket ledgers and loose papers seized on 13-1-1989. The appellants contended that these documents contained entries of personal transactions of Shri L.N. Garg along with some transactions of M/s. Surendra Alloys. The Department failed to establish that these documents pertained entirely to M/s. Surendra Alloys. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not conduct any investigation with other suppliers or purchasers to corroborate the transactions. The evidence on record was insufficient to conclude that the pocket ledgers and loose papers were solely related to M/s. Surendra Alloys. Consequently, the findings of the adjudicating authority on this issue were set aside.

3. Allegation of Clandestine Manufacture and Clearance:
The Tribunal found that the Department did not discharge the burden of proof to establish the charge of clandestine removal. The consumption of electricity required for manufacturing the alleged disputed quantity was significantly lower than the minimum requirement under ideal conditions, as corroborated by an expert certificate. The Department's demand was based on the quantity reflected in the diaries without deducting the quantity of clearances reflected in the statutory records. The Tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside the duty demand and penalty on M/s. Surendra Alloys and Metal Fittings.

4. Time-barred Demand:
The appellants argued that the demand was time-barred as there was no suppression of facts. The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to support the Department's claim of suppression. Therefore, the extended period of limitation u/s 11A of the CESA, 1944, was not applicable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants in accordance with the law. The penalties imposed on Shri S.K. Garg and Shri L.N. Garg were also set aside as no notice was issued to them to show cause against the imposition of penalty.