Tribunal overturns duty demand & penalty for alleged clandestine removal of MS Ingots

The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty demand and penalty on the appellant for alleged clandestine removal of MS Ingots without payment of duty. It ruled that evidence solely based on private records from transporters was insufficient to support the charge. Emphasizing the necessity of collaboration and corroboration, the Tribunal referenced legal precedents and highlighted the lack of verification attempts with the appellant's records or buyers of the ingots. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant due to the absence of substantive corroboration for the allegation of clandestine removal.

---

---

Issues: Allegation of clandestine removal of MS Ingots without payment of duty based on private records maintained by transporters.

In this case, the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots, was accused of clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 10,23,666. The Central Excise officers based their case on private records recovered from transporters, M/s Gajraj Roadlines and M/s Bajrang Transport Services. The proceedings began with a show cause notice in 2010 and concluded with an order-in-original in 2013, confirming duty demand and imposing an equal amount of penalty on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, leading the appellant to file an appeal challenging the decision.

The appellant argued that the demand was confirmed solely based on entries in documents seized from the transporters, without any corroboration. They highlighted the lack of inquiry into various aspects such as procurement of raw material, electricity consumption, clandestine manufacture, or clearance of goods from the manufacturing unit. The appellant contended that selective inference from certain documents without collaboration could not support a serious charge of clandestine removal. They cited various legal precedents to support their stance that substantive corroboration is necessary to sustain an allegation of clandestine removal.

On the other hand, the authorized representative supported the lower authorities' findings, stating that the transporters regularly transported MS Ingots manufactured by the appellant, and their records were correctly relied upon to confirm the demand. Upon examination, the Tribunal noted that the Central Excise demand was indeed based solely on private records maintained by the transporters. The order concluded that the evidence from the transporters' records was insufficient to demand Central Excise duty from the appellant. It highlighted the lack of verification attempts for corroboration with the appellant's records or buyers of the ingots, emphasizing that the investigation relied solely on one source of evidence without collaboration from any other source.

The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to emphasize that clandestine removal cannot be solely established based on third-party documents without collaboration. It mentioned cases like Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. vs. CCE, Lucknow, Charminar Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad II, Bhandary Industrial Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Goa, and CCE, Indore vs. Rajratan Synthetics Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained due to the lack of collaboration and set it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

---