Tribunal overturns penalties on SFL and directors for lack of evidence
Shah Foils Limited, Shri Kartik R Shah, Shri Ramesh M Shah Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Surat-i, ii, Rajkot, Ahmedabad-iii
Shah Foils Limited, Shri Kartik R Shah, Shri Ramesh M Shah Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Surat-i, ii, Rajkot, Ahmedabad-iii - TMI
Issues Involved:1. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods by M/s Shah Foils Ltd (SFL).
2. Allegations of undervaluation of goods by M/s SFL.
3. Allegations of availing credit without actual receipt of goods by M/s SFL.
4. Imposition of penalties on M/s SFL and its directors.
Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations of Clandestine Removal of Goods:The demand against M/s SFL was based on data retrieved from pen drives and loose papers seized from a locker, which allegedly indicated clandestine clearances. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, relying on statements from brokers and buyers, which were deemed contradictory and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found that the data from the pen drives and loose papers alone could not substantiate the allegations without independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of following Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, which mandates cross-examination of witnesses whose statements are relied upon. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of cross-examination and the lack of corroborative evidence rendered the allegations unsustainable.
2. Allegations of Undervaluation of Goods:The demand for undervaluation was based on ledger accounts "Direct Purchases (Value Diff.)" and "Direct Sales (Value Diff.)" found in the pen drives. The adjudicating authority alleged that M/s SFL recovered additional amounts in cash over the invoice value. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of any corroborative evidence, such as proof of receipt of additional consideration. The Tribunal found that the statements relied upon were inconsistent and lacked substantial evidence. Consequently, the demand on the grounds of undervaluation was deemed unsustainable.
3. Allegations of Availing Credit Without Actual Receipt of Goods:The demand was based on the ledger account "Smi (Cash)" containing entries marked "Only Bills," implying receipt of invoices without goods. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegation, such as statements from suppliers or other corroborative evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the Gujarat VAT forms indicated the actual movement of goods, contradicting the allegation. Hence, the demand was found unsustainable.
4. Imposition of Penalties:Penalties were imposed on M/s SFL and its directors under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal found that the penalties were based on the same uncorroborated evidence as the demands. Given the lack of substantial evidence and the procedural lapses, the Tribunal set aside the penalties.
Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the demands and penalties imposed on M/s SFL and its directors, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence and procedural lapses in the investigation. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.