Tribunal reduces excise duty demand to 35% after finding insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, reducing the demand for excise duty to 35% of the total amount. Despite the Revenue's argument that all clearances were for finished goods, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence beyond the 10 recovered invoices and relied on the partner's admission of 35% manipulation. The respondent benefited from the doubt, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the affirmation of the lower decision.

---

---

Issues:
Clandestine removal of finished goods under the guise of parts, dispute over whether all invoices showing parts clearance are for finished goods or a mix, reduction of demand by Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of evidence.

Analysis:
The case involved a respondent engaged in manufacturing travel goods parts, clearing them to another company under false pretenses to evade central excise duty. The investigation revealed a modus operandi where invoices were manipulated to show parts clearance while actually delivering finished goods clandestinely. A show cause notice was issued, demanding excise duty of Rs. 23,09,251, later reduced to Rs. 9,03,277 by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Revenue appealed, arguing that all clearances were of finished goods based on recovered parallel invoices. The Assistant Commissioner contended that once the modus operandi was exposed, 100% evidence was unnecessary, citing relevant case laws. The respondent's representative countered, stating that only 10 invoices were found, and the partner admitted to manipulating around 35% of clearances, not all. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for 35% of the total.

The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and statements, noting the lack of conclusive proof beyond the 10 recovered invoices. The partner's admission of 35% manipulation was crucial in determining the reduction of demand. Given the absence of additional evidence, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, granting the benefit of doubt to the respondent. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

---