2017 (5) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Adjudication on Clandestine Goods Removal: Evidence, Liability, and Central Excise Duty

Radha Textiles Private Ltd., Super Textiles, SNB Textiles, Sri Kumar Textiles, Universal Yarn, N. Subbiah And CCE Trichy Versus CCE Trichy And (Vice-Versa)

Radha Textiles Private Ltd., Super Textiles, SNB Textiles, Sri Kumar Textiles, Universal Yarn, N. Subbiah And CCE Trichy Versus CCE Trichy And ... Issues: Adjudication based on evidence, legality of evidence discovery, quantification of liability, examination of incriminating materials, verification of allegations, examination of statutory returns, quantification aspect, next date of hearing.Adjudication based on evidence: The judgment discusses the thorough examination of evidence by the adjudicating authority to conclude clandestine removal of goods causing prejudice to Revenue. The order emphasizes the importance of well-reasoned decisions based on evidence.Legality of evidence discovery: The judgment addresses the legal question of whether the discovery of evidence, including a floppy disk, was authorized by law. It cites a legal precedent stating that even if the search is illegal, the outcome can be used in proceedings. The appellant is directed to examine the liability arising from the floppy disk.Quantification of liability: The judgment directs the counsel to quantify the liability related to the recovery of the floppy from an employee's residence. It highlights the need for a detailed examination to determine the extent of liability based on incriminating materials recovered.Examination of incriminating materials: Various incriminating materials, including documents and statements, are listed in the judgment. The tribunal directs the Revenue to thoroughly examine and quantify the liability associated with each incriminating material found during the search.Verification of allegations: The judgment includes a detailed summary of allegations related to unaccounted purchases, production, clearances, and evasion of Central Excise duty by the appellant. These allegations are to be scrutinized with the appellant's pleadings and evidence for further examination.Examination of statutory returns: The judgment mentions that the appellant deliberately furnished incorrect particulars in statutory returns, disclosing lesser quantities to evade Central Excise duty. This aspect is highlighted for examination and verification.Quantification aspect: The tribunal directs a comprehensive examination of the quantification aspect concerning each incriminating material discovered during the investigation. The quantification of liability is crucial for determining the duty liability accurately.Next date of hearing: To provide a reasonable opportunity to both sides, the matter is scheduled for the next hearing on a specified date. This allows for further examination, verification, and quantification of liabilities before the tribunal.