1999 (6) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Clandestine removal of Mixed Raw Naptha (M.R.N.) to evade Central Excise duty.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Show Cause Notice Allegations:
- A show cause notice accused the appellant of clandestinely removing 1884.853 K.L. of M.R.N. to evade Central Excise duty.
- The notice was based on investigations following a letter from the Refinery, indicating migration of M.R.N. causing contamination of Naptha supplied to M/s. H.F.C. Ltd.

2. Appellant's Defense:
- The appellant denied the allegations, claiming the demand of Rs. 42,48,232.48 was misconstrued and lacked proper evidence.
- The Deputy Collector of Central Excise sought a cause from the appellants.
- The Collector confirmed duty on 422 KL of unaccounted M.R.N., imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000, leading to the appeal.

3. Legal Grounds Challenged:
- The appellant argued that the notice was void as it was issued by an incompetent officer, beyond the limitation period, invoking Section 11A.
- The appellant contended that the case lacked positive evidence of clandestine removal under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, placing the burden of proof on the Revenue.

4. Judgment:
- The Tribunal found the notice void as it should have been issued by the Collector, not the Superintendent, despite later attempts to regularize it.
- The Collector's letter did not meet the legal requirements, lacking proper application of mind, leading to the notice being deemed unsustainable.
- On the merits, the Tribunal agreed that the Revenue's case lacked positive evidence of clandestine removal, rendering the duty demand unsustainable.

5. Conclusion:
- The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, providing consequential relief.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the issue of clandestine removal of M.R.N. to evade Central Excise duty, focusing on procedural irregularities, burden of proof, and the lack of concrete evidence in the case.