2018 (1) TMI 1314 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - case of the Revenue is that the appellant has manufactured electric wires and cables and cleared the same clandestinely during the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 (upto 08.08.2011) without payment of Central Excise duty - Held that - in the light of the evidences placed on record by the Revenue in the form of documents as well as various inculpatory statements the allegation that the appellant has procured raw materials manufactured wires and cables and cleared the same clandestinely without payment of duty stands established - the demand of duty as well as the penalties imposed in the impugned order is upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against order in appeal No. 139/CE/D-II/13 & O-I-O No. 12/2014-15 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-II regarding clandestine removal of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Appellant's Contentions:
The appellant, a manufacturer of electric wires & cables, filed appeals against show cause notices post a search at their premises alleging clandestine removal. The appellant argued they were not registered with Central Excise, the factory owner was not educated, and the machinery capacity was limited, making clandestine removal improbable.

2. Revenue's Case:
The Revenue contended the appellant clandestinely cleared goods without duty payment, exceeding SSI exemption limits. Evidences included unaccounted raw materials, fake invoices, and statements confirming clandestine activities. Suppliers confirmed supplying raw materials without invoices.

3. Main Evidences Supporting Revenue's Case:
- Unaccounted raw materials and finished goods found during search.
- Fake firm's invoices used for clandestine clearances.
- Details of raw material suppliers and transactions found in recovered documents.
- Statements of suppliers confirming supplying raw materials.
- Diaries recording sale transactions and bank account verification.
- Detailed statements of factory owner admitting clandestine activities.

4. Grounds Assailed and Adjudicating Authority's Findings:
Challenges included factory capacity, language barrier of the factory owner, and ownership of recovered documents. The authority found documents authentic, transactions accounted for, and factory capable of alleged production. The owner's language proficiency plea was dismissed as an afterthought.

5. Conclusion and Judgment:
After reviewing all evidence, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's claim of clandestine activities by the appellant, leading to duty demand, penalties, and goods confiscation. Both appeals were dismissed on 30.01.2018.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key contentions, evidences, challenges, and the final judgment of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI regarding the case of clandestine removal of goods.