2018 (2) TMI 1437 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - MS Ingots CTD/TMT Bars and mis-rolls - Held that - Department officers visited the premises in December. The investigation continued for another two years as seen from statement of Sh.M.Seetharama Reddy which was recorded on 15.12.2005 and again on 25.4.2006. Still the department has not made any investigation as to whether respondent had procured excess unaccounted inputs or details of suppliers who have supplied unaccounted inputs/raw material for alleged unaccounted manufacture of finished products. Apart from private records and statements there is no material to establish clandestine clearance of goods. Clandestine clearance being a very serious charge the department is duty bound to establish the same with reliable evidence. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods without payment of duty, sufficiency of evidence, validity of statements obtained, burden of proof on the Revenue.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved a case where officers conducted a search at the respondent's premises and recovered private documents suggesting clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods without duty payment. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice for duty recovery, interest, and penalties. The original authority confirmed the demand and penalties, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside, leading the Revenue to appeal before the Tribunal.

The Revenue argued that statements by the Director and General Manager of the respondent company admitted discrepancies in production reports not reflected in statutory records. They cited a previous case to support their claim that precise evidence is not required in clandestine cases. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the case was based on assumptions and private documents, with no discrepancies found in statutory records. They highlighted the lack of evidence regarding buyers, transportation, electricity consumption, and coercion in obtaining statements.

The Tribunal noted that the case relied heavily on private records and statements, lacking concrete evidence of clandestine activities such as unaccounted inputs, buyers, transportation, or payments. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the need for reliable evidence to prove clandestine activities, citing a previous case. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence to establish clandestine clearance of goods.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of substantial evidence to prove allegations of clandestine activities, highlighting the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish such claims conclusively. The decision underscored the necessity of reliable evidence regarding raw materials, electricity consumption, sales, transportation, and financial transactions to confirm clandestine activities, cautioning against relying solely on assumptions or private documents.