2009 (6) TMI 709 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants relief in duty evasion case, criticizing lack of evidence.

AMTREX HITACHI APPLIANCE LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VAPI

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in a case involving the seizure of air-conditioners during a transit check due to suspicions of duty evasion. The duty ... Demand - Clandestine removal, proof Issues:Transit check leading to seizure of air-conditioners, duty demand confirmation, penalty imposition, confiscation of trucks, redemption fine, procedural omission, multiple clearances against same invoice, machine numbers on invoices, verification of machine numbers with seized goods, confessional statements, delay in truck movement, clandestine removal, lack of evidence by the department, findings of the original adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:The judgment involves a case where two trucks loaded with air-conditioners were intercepted during a transit check, leading to the seizure of the goods due to suspicions of back-dated invoices and non-payment of Central Excise duty. The duty demands on the seized air-conditioners and those cleared without duty payment were confirmed, resulting in the imposition of penalties and confiscation of the trucks, which could be redeemed upon payment of a fine. The appellant company challenged the decision, arguing that the heavy dispatches on the day of the incident caused delays in some shipments, leading to the procedural omission. The appellant emphasized that their invoices contained machine numbers, preventing multiple clearances against the same invoice. However, the original adjudicating authority raised concerns about the timing of clearance and the relevance of machine numbers, which the appellant deemed unwarranted and lacking proper analysis.The Tribunal noted that the original authority did not establish that the goods were cleared without proper documentation or duty payment, highlighting the importance of verifying machine numbers on invoices with the seized goods. The Tribunal found the observations regarding delays in truck movement and machine number discrepancies to be crucial in determining any clandestine removal, emphasizing the need for proper evidence to support such claims. The Tribunal criticized the lack of findings by the original authority on these critical aspects, leading to a conclusion that the appellant had assigned machine numbers correctly and the invoices covered the seized goods as well as those already removed with duty demands.Regarding confessional statements and evidence, the Tribunal found no explicit confessions related to clandestine removal and accepted the appellant's explanation for the delay in truck movement as reasonable and acceptable. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellant based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal and procedural irregularities.In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of thorough verification, proper analysis, and substantial evidence in cases involving duty demands, confiscation, and penalties related to excisable goods, emphasizing the need for clear findings and substantiated claims to uphold legal decisions.