Appellate Tribunal overturns Revenue's decision on excise duty demand, emphasizing need for thorough verification

The Appellate Tribunal overturned the Revenue's decision confirming a demand of Rs. 98,000 for excise duty based on an invoice indicating 16% duty collected for goods exempt from duty. Despite the invoice error, the appellant provided a certificate and bond as evidence of no duty payment for the exported goods. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for not thoroughly investigating and relying solely on the invoice, ultimately setting aside the order and allowing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the necessity of substantiated evidence and thorough verification before confirming demands based on presumptions from documentation alone.

---

---

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of excise duty based on an invoice showing 16% duty collected for exported goods exempt from duty
- Appellant's contention of no duty collected due to mistake in the invoice
- Production of certificate and bond as evidence supporting the appellant's claim
- Disbelief by the Revenue despite documentary evidence provided by the appellant

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from a demand confirmation of Rs. 98,000 based on an invoice showing 16% excise duty collected for goods exempt from duty. The appellant argued that the duty was not actually collected, attributing the error to the invoice. Supporting their claim, they presented a certificate from Winlam Industries Ltd., confirming no duty payment for goods exported to Bangladesh under bond. Additionally, the appellant provided a bond extract as further evidence of duty exemption for the exported goods.

Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to conduct a thorough investigation to discredit the appellant's version. Notably, there was no recorded statement from Winlam Industries Ltd. denying duty payment, and the appellant substantiated their position with documentary evidence indicating no duty collection as per the invoice. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue's presumption solely based on the invoice's mention of 16% duty without corroborating evidence or further inquiry.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the Revenue's order incorrect and set it aside, allowing the appeal with any necessary consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiated evidence and proper investigation before confirming demands based on presumptions derived solely from documentation without supporting verification.

---