2008 (8) TMI 259 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal reinstates Revenue's appeals in clandestine goods removal case, citing discrepancies. Director's bias claim dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals in a case involving clandestine removal of goods and penalties imposed on the respondents. The Tribunal found ... Clandestine removal of goods - respondents are clearing final product without payment of duty and they are also maintaining parallel GP-1/invoices/challans which were not reflected in the statutory record - hand-writing experts opined that documents are in the hand-writing of Director - On the basis of private record and parallel GP-1/Invoices demand was rightly confirmed and penalties were rightly imposed – revenue’s appeal is allowed Issues:1. Clandestine removal of goods and penalties imposition.2. Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Private record maintenance and hand-writing expert opinion.4. Excess production investigation by Revenue.Analysis:The case involved appeals by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confirmation of demand due to clandestine removal of goods and penalties imposed on the respondents. The Revenue alleged that the respondents were clearing final products without paying duty and maintaining parallel GP-1/invoices/challans not reflected in statutory records. Hand-writing experts opined that documents were in the hand-writing of the Director. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalties, stating that further investigation by the Revenue was necessary to ascertain excess production and other related details. The Revenue argued that the private records, hand-writing expert opinion, and parallel documents confirmed the clearance of goods without payment of duty, and the Director's claim of fabrication was unsubstantiated.The Tribunal found that the demand was based on private records, and the hand-writing expert confirmed the Director's involvement. Discrepancies between the parallel documents and statutory records were noted. The Director's claim of bias in the hand-writing expert's report lacked supporting evidence. The private records indicated clearances without duty payment, with entries attributed to the Director. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable, setting it aside and restoring the Adjudicating authority's decision, thereby allowing the appeals by the Revenue.In summary, the Tribunal's decision revolved around the authenticity of private records, hand-writing expert opinions, and discrepancies between parallel documents and statutory records. The lack of evidence supporting the Director's claim of bias in the expert report led to the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the previous order and reinstating the Adjudicating authority's decision.