2019 (2) TMI 468 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty demand due to lack of direct evidence in excise duty case

JR Gour, Raigarh Iron Industries Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T., Raipur

The Tribunal set aside the confirmed demand for Central Excise duty in a case involving allegations of suppression and clandestine removal of MS ingots. ... Clandestine manufacture and removal - MS Ingots - name of the appellant Noticee No.1 of impugned SCN was found mentioned in the incriminating records of M/s. Monu Steels, the another manufacturer of ingots - demand on the basis of excess electricity consumption - Held that:- The law i.e. as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is well established - the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents, unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal of MS ingots.2. Confirmation of Central Excise duty demand.3. Use of third-party records as evidence for clandestine removal.Analysis:1. The case involved allegations of suppression of production and clandestine removal of MS ingots against the manufacturer, based on incriminating records found during a search at another manufacturer's premises. The Department alleged that the manufacturer had clandestinely removed a significant quantity of MS ingots, leading to duty evasion. The original adjudicating authority confirmed a substantial demand, which was later partially dropped in the appellate order.2. The appellate order confirmed a reduced demand for Central Excise duty related to the alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of MS ingots. Additionally, a penalty was imposed on the Director of the company. The appellant contested the confirmation of the remaining demand, arguing that it lacked corroborative evidence and that the major part of the demand had already been set aside. The Department, on the other hand, defended the adjudicating authority's decision, stating that it was based on documentary evidence.3. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and legal precedents regarding the use of third-party records as evidence for clandestine removal. It noted that the Revenue's case heavily relied on records recovered from another entity, without substantial corroborative evidence directly linking the appellant to the alleged activities. Citing various judicial decisions, the Tribunal emphasized the requirement for clinching evidence to uphold findings of clandestine removal. As the Revenue failed to provide such evidence beyond the third-party records, the Tribunal set aside the confirmed demand and allowed the appeals.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's evaluation of the evidence, and the legal principles applied in reaching the decision to set aside the confirmed demand for Central Excise duty.