Dismissal of Appeal Upholding Order on Clandestine Goods; Lack of Evidence for Duty Demand

The appeal against the order in original passed by the Pr. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service tax, Bhopal regarding clandestine removal of goods attracting Central Excise duty was dismissed. The impugned order setting aside the duty demand was upheld due to insufficient evidence supporting the Department's claim of clandestine removal by the respondent engaged in cigarette manufacturing. The appellant's arguments failed to establish merit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against the order in original passed by the Pr. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service tax, Bhopal regarding clandestine removal of goods attracting Central Excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order in original passed by the Pr. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service tax, Bhopal, concerning the clandestine removal of goods attracting Central Excise duty. The respondent, engaged in cigarette manufacturing, had a search conducted at its premises where material was seized, leading to the Department alleging clandestine removal and demanding duty. However, the impugned order set aside the duty demand, prompting the Department to file the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's manufacturing activity commencement in June 2008 was noted, with a search conducted in October 2008. As cigarettes are excisable items, the Central Excise law dictates that the Excise Department representative has physical control in the factory, ensuring no cigarettes can leave without approval. The statement of the personnel in charge indicated the manufacture of plain brand cigarettes, but no investigation was conducted with buyers or into the alleged clandestine removal. Furthermore, no examination was made regarding raw material consumption, electricity usage, or manpower, leading to a lack of evidence supporting the clandestine removal claim.

Ultimately, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the records, it was concluded that the appeal filed by the Department lacked merit. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, with the judgment being dictated and pronounced in open court.

---