Tribunal affirms dismissal of Revenue's appeal on duplex paper removal due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding the alleged clandestine removal of duplex paper. Lack of evidence supporting the removal claim, inconsistencies in statements obtained during the investigation, and reliance on planning register entries led to the decision on 11.01.2019.

---

---

Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of duplex paper without payment of duty. Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the respondent's appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the alleged clandestine removal of duplex paper by the respondent, leading to a demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 20,39,668. The investigation revealed clearances without invoices, prompting the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent adjudication confirming the duty demand, interest, and penalty against the respondent.

2. The Revenue, aggrieved by the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing the respondent's appeal, contended that evidence from the Dispatch register, statements, and admission of the respondent's director supported the clandestine removal claim, seeking to set aside the order.

3. The respondent countered by arguing that the case primarily relied on the Dispatch register, which was a planning register maintained by the Dispatch clerk for convenience and not a record of actual clearance. They highlighted discrepancies in the entries, emphasizing that not all inquiries led to purchases, and explained the planning details recorded in the register.

4. During the investigation, statements from various individuals were recorded, but later retracted, including those of the billing clerk, Dispatch clerk, and directors of the respondent company. Cross-examination of buyers, suppliers, and employees revealed inconsistencies and raised doubts about the authenticity of the statements obtained under duress.

5. The adjudicating authority's findings considered the retracted statements, input-output ratio, electricity consumption, absence of excess production evidence, and lack of corroborative invoices for entries in the Dispatch register. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred, concluding that clandestine removal was not proven, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, citing the lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal and inconsistencies in statements obtained during the investigation. The judgments cited by the respondent further bolstered their case, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on 11.01.2019.

---