2014 (8) TMI 86 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine clearance - demand based on two spiral diaries were recovered from the cabin of the co-noticee containing details of despatches of paper based decorative sheets manufactured in the said factory and on the basis of statement of various persons recorded during and after the searches - Held that - The entire grounds of appeal of the appellants before the tribunal only states ratio of the various case laws has to be applied in the case in hand and has to be concluded that here was no clandestine removal. In my considered view, this will be a erroneous proposition made by the appellants in as much as, in all the case laws which has been referred, the tribunal has gone into details of each and every aspect of the evidences produced during the hearing. In the cases in hand, I find that except for assertion of no clandestine manufacturing etc., there is no evidence on record, to consider submissions in correct perspective. - demand confirmed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the main appellant admitted to engaging in clandestine removal of goods.
2. Whether the individual was correctly penalized for their role in clandestine removal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two appeals against the original order. The appellant was accused of clandestine clearances based on recovered diaries and statements. The Show Cause Notice demanded Central Excise duty, interest, and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, levied interest, and imposed penalties on the appellants and the director. The first appellate authority upheld the decision, leading to the current appeals.

2. The appellant's consultant argued that there was no corroborative evidence of clandestine activities, citing various judgments. They claimed no discrepancies in stock and highlighted statements supporting legitimate despatches. In contrast, the department representative emphasized inculpatory statements, admissions in diaries, and a letter admitting bogus clearances. The judge reviewed both arguments and the case records.

3. The primary issue was whether the appellant engaged in clandestine removal. The judge noted the recovery of diaries, statements by the director and supervisor, and lack of retractions. The absence of credible evidence contradicting inculpatory statements led to upholding the findings. The judge critiqued the appellant's reliance on case law without substantial evidence in their favor.

4. The judge dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding lack of additional evidence like electricity consumption or raw material procurement, as these were not raised earlier. Ultimately, the judge found the impugned order legally sound, without any flaws, and upheld it, rejecting the appeals. The decision was pronounced on 04.07.2014.