2017 (4) TMI 1209 - AT - Central Excise

Shortage of goods - a quantity of 15,151.75 mtrs. of polyester man made fabrics was short against the recorded balance - Held that - Since upon appreciation of the facts, based on evidence, the authorities below have held that the entire search proceeding are in-fractuous/ void and the Department has not brought any tangible evidence to prove its case against the Respondent, I am of the fire view that such observations cannot be disturbed at this juncture - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II
- Allegations of short quantity of fabrics and clandestine removal against the respondent
- Adjudication order proposing duty demand
- Upholding of the adjudication order by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)
- Challenge to the impugned order by the revenue

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II. The respondent, engaged in processing Cotton and Man Made Fabrics, faced allegations of short quantity of fabrics and clandestine removal. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the recorded balance of fabrics. The Department issued a show cause notice leading to an adjudication order proposing duty demand, which was partially dropped. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order in the impugned order dated 08.02.2008.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the tribunal noted the observations made by the ld. adjudicating authority. The tribunal emphasized that the authorities below found the search proceedings to be void due to lack of tangible evidence against the respondent. The tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that the Department failed to substantiate its case based on the available evidence. The tribunal highlighted that the investigating officers' failure to prepare a panchnama and the absence of concrete proof regarding the alleged clandestine removal weakened the Department's case.

The tribunal concluded that the observations made by the authorities below, based on the evidence presented, were valid. As the Department could not provide substantial evidence to support its claims against the respondent, the tribunal found no reason to disturb the lower authorities' findings. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, upholding the impugned order dated 08.02.2008.