Tribunal upholds order on copper ingots removal, penalty justified under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the clandestine removal of copper ingots by the appellant and the associated demand for Rs. 66,29,476/- along with interest and an equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order under challenge, emphasizing that the appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove their innocence and that the penalty imposed was justified. The appeal was accordingly rejected.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the statement of the proprietor recorded under duress and coercion.
2. Admissibility of documents recovered from the cabin of a vehicle.
3. Basis of demand relying on presumption/eye estimation for the weight of copper ingots.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the statement of the proprietor recorded under duress and coercion:

The appellant argued that the statement of the proprietor, Mr. Alok Aggarwal, was recorded under duress and coercion and thus should not be sufficient to prove the alleged clandestine removal without sufficient corroboration. However, the Tribunal noted that Mr. Aggarwal's statement was given voluntarily, as there was no evidence of coercion or duress. The Tribunal highlighted that Mr. Aggarwal made subsequent statements on 20th November 2012, 27th November 2012, and 14th March 2013, corroborating his initial statement from 15th June 2012, where he admitted to clandestine removal of copper ingots. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in K.I.G. Augustine vs. Commissioner of Customs and K.I. Pavunny vs. Asstt. Collector, which state that retracted statements can still be considered valid if there is no evidence of coercion and if corroborated by other evidence. The Tribunal concluded that Mr. Aggarwal's retraction letter dated 19th June 2012 had no legs to stand upon, given the subsequent corroborative statements and the lack of evidence supporting the claim of coercion.

2. Admissibility of documents recovered from the cabin of a vehicle:

The appellant contended that the documents recovered from the cabin of a vehicle parked in their factory premises should not be read against them. The Tribunal, however, found that the documents were admissible as evidence. The driver of the vehicle, Mr. Subash Yadav, admitted that the documents contained details of raw materials and finished goods related to the appellant's business. Mr. Yadav's statement was corroborated by the statements of Mr. Jagat Singh, a worker in the appellant's factory, and Mr. Alok Aggarwal, who acknowledged the business transactions detailed in the documents. The Tribunal emphasized that the documents recovered from the vehicle were directly linked to the appellant’s business activities and thus were valid evidence.

3. Basis of demand relying on presumption/eye estimation for the weight of copper ingots:

The appellant argued that the demand was based on an eye estimation of the weight of copper ingots, which they claimed was not reasonable evidence. They pointed out contradictions in the recorded evidence regarding the weight of the ingots. However, the Tribunal found that Mr. Aggarwal had admitted to the clandestine removal of copper ingots, and the weight of the ingots was roughly around 136 Kg, as per his own admission. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the discrepancies between their returns and the resumed documents. The Tribunal concluded that the eye estimation of the ingots' weight by the Department, holding them to be 100 Kg each, was reasonable and upheld the demand based on this estimation.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the clandestine removal of copper ingots by the appellant and the associated demand for Rs. 66,29,476/- along with interest and an equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order under challenge, emphasizing that the appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove their innocence and that the penalty imposed was justified. The appeal was accordingly rejected.

---