2012 (5) TMI 324 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeals in clandestine goods case, stressing need for concrete evidence.

The appellate tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals in a case involving a dispute over clandestine clearance of goods. The tribunal emphasized the need ... Clandestine removal - incriminating documents in the shape of katcha parchis - held that:- there is no positive cogent evidence relating said katcha parchis to the goods manufactured - No buyers stand identified along with identification of transporter etc. - confirmation of demand on the basis of katcha parchis cannot be held to be sustainable. - Decided in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Dispute over clandestine clearance of goods based on recovered documents.2. Lack of positive evidence linking seized documents to goods manufactured.3. Appeal against confirmation of demand and penalties imposed.Analysis:Issue 1: The case involved a dispute regarding the alleged clandestine clearance of cables manufactured by M/s. Pymen Cable(India) based on incriminating documents, namely katcha parchis, recovered during a search at the residential premises of Shri Sandeep Garg, the director of M/s. Metro Electricals Pvt. Ltd., a trading unit associated with M/s. Pymen Cable(India).Issue 2: The Revenue maintained that the seized katcha parchis indicated clandestine clearance, but the appellate authority found a lack of positive evidence linking these documents to the goods manufactured by M/s. Pymen Cable(India). Statements of involved parties, including Shri Sandeep Garg and Shri Vinod Garg, were considered, with no conclusive admission of clandestine activities. The appellate authority emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support the claim of clandestine clearance.Issue 3: The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, which were challenged in an appeal resulting in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the original decision. The appellate tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing the absence of evidence showing excess manufacturing by M/s. Pymen Cable(India) or identification of buyers and transporters, crucial for establishing clandestine clearance. The tribunal concluded that confirming demand based solely on uncorroborated entries in seized documents was not sustainable, rejecting the Revenue's appeals.In summary, the appellate tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence and the lack of substantiated proof linking the seized documents to clandestine activities, ultimately supporting the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the original adjudicating authority's order.