2017 (3) TMI 1353 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - The Revenue s main case is that the appellant M/s Om Fragrance were engaged in manufacturing excisable goods namely India Gold gutkha without obtaining any central excise registration - Held that - the Commissioner during the adjudication proceedings has not taken into account the submissions of the appellants that there have not been direct or indirect corroborative evidences in the form of purchase/utilisation/consumption of raw materials sale of finished goods and so on - also appellants were not given the opportunity of cross examination of the concerned persons whose statements and evidences are having bearing on the outcome of their case - When it is so the impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to examine and decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Central Excise duty recovery and penalties imposed on appellants.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the order claiming no commercial production at Burari and no evidence of manufacturing activity. They argued that gutkha bore another manufacturer's name and details. Additionally, they highlighted the absence of incriminating evidence, sales records, brand presence in the market, identified dealers, transportation evidence, and raw materials at the premises. They challenged the case built solely on statements, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence. The appellants referenced legal precedent to support their stance.

The Revenue alleged that M/s Om Fragrance engaged in clandestine manufacturing and clearance of gutkha without excise registration, evading duty. The main evidence included a Panchnama, statements of involved individuals, and the proprietor of another entity. The Revenue claimed duty evasion amounting to &8377; 96,47,361 through the unauthorized production and clearance of 'India Gold' gutkha.

The Tribunal noted the Commissioner's oversight in not considering the appellants' arguments regarding the absence of corroborative evidence and the denial of cross-examination opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for reevaluation, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and document submission. The Tribunal directed the original adjudicating authority to review the case within four months from the order's receipt.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed for remand, providing the appellants with an opportunity for a fair assessment of the case based on proper procedure and evidence submission.