2017 (11) TMI 1295 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty demand and penalties in appeals over alleged clandestine removal of goods

Shri Piyush Jain, The Rishabh Velveleen Ltd., Shri Umesh Chand Jain Versus CCE, Dehradun

Shri Piyush Jain, The Rishabh Velveleen Ltd., Shri Umesh Chand Jain Versus CCE, Dehradun - TMI Issues:Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2015 for duty demand and penalty during 1993-1995 period; Remand by Hon'ble High Court; Death of involved individuals; Non-provision of relied upon documents; Upholding of duty and penalty in second round of litigation; Violation of law in penalty imposition; Lack of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal; Failure to collect incriminating evidence; Failure to provide relied upon documents; Differential treatment in appeals; Benefit of doubt and interest of justice in setting aside impugned order.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2015 concerning duty demand and penalty for the period 1993-1995. The Department alleged clandestine removal of goods based on a search conducted in 1994, leading to duty demand and penalty imposition.2. The matter was remanded by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand following an appeal. The death of involved individuals, non-provision of relied upon documents, and subsequent dismissal of appeals further complicated the case.3. The counsel for the assessee-Appellants argued that no suppression of production was found, emphasizing discrepancies in registers maintained for loan purposes and lack of evidence from buyers or unaccounted vouchers.4. The imposition of penalties was challenged citing a violation of law based on a Tribunal's precedent regarding clubbing of clearances. The lack of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal was highlighted.5. The Department justified the impugned order citing investigations from buyers admitting purchases without proper vouchers. However, the lengthy litigation period and lack of available evidence were noted.6. The Tribunal observed the absence of incriminating material and failure to collect corroborated evidence for clandestine removal. The unreliability of private registers as sole evidence was emphasized.7. The Tribunal noted the failure to provide relied upon documents and the lack of additional evidence after a considerable period. The differential treatment in appeals was highlighted, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order in the interest of justice and benefit of doubt.8. Ultimately, the appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants were allowed, setting aside the confirmed duty and penalties in the second round of litigation.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision in the detailed judgment.