2012 (11) TMI 145 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - allegation of the department was that the party had clandestinely manufactured and removed excisable goods without payment of duty Held that - Demand of any amount of duty must have necessarily a quantitative basis, for which mathematical precision is required - This attribute is missing in this case - In this case no investigation whatsoever has been conducted as regards the duplicate set of invoices in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Clandestine removal of goods under parallel invoices without payment of duty.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants being accused of clearing goods under parallel invoices without paying duty. A surprise visit to the factory revealed parallel invoices used for goods clearance, prompting duty payment by the appellants. The director initially admitted to the removal but later submitted a contradictory representation, denying involvement. The appellants argued no discrepancy in stock or incriminating evidence was found during the visit. The AR contended it was a clear case of clandestine removal, emphasizing the director's signed parallel invoices as evidence. The Tribunal considered the lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal beyond the parallel invoices. Despite the director's contradictory statements, no further verification was conducted by the Revenue, leading to the order being set aside due to insufficient investigation.

The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving clandestine removal, where thorough investigation and evidence were crucial for sustaining duty demand. In contrast, the current case lacked proper verification of the parallel invoices, buyers, and transportation details. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of evidence and investigation in establishing clandestine removal cases. The appellants' situation was deemed better than the cited case due to the absence of investigation into the duplicate invoices. The decision in another case was distinguished based on the quality of evidence presented. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants due to the Revenue's failure to substantiate the case with adequate investigation, leading to the reversal of the impugned order.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal under parallel invoices. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of thorough investigation and verification to establish such claims. The contradictory statements of the director, without further inquiry by the Revenue, contributed to the order being set aside. The comparison with previous cases highlighted the significance of evidence quality and investigative efforts in determining duty liability in clandestine removal cases.