Tribunal allows Revenue's appeal on clandestine steel ingots removal case, remands for reassessment.

The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal in a case involving allegations of clandestine removal of steel ingots. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously allowed the assessee's appeal due to insufficient evidence and denial of procedural rights. However, the Tribunal found that the existence of double invoices and discrepancies in stock registers provided substantial evidence of clandestine activity. As a result, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reassess the demand based on the unchallenged evidence of double invoices, partially granting the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues: Allegations of clandestine removal of steel ingots based on double/duplicate invoices, lack of corroborative evidence, denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, appeal against Order-in-Original confirming demands, appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals), appeal by Revenue.

In this case, the respondent-assessee, engaged in manufacturing Iron and Steel Ingots, was alleged to be involved in clandestine removal of steel ingots based on specific intelligence and investigations by officers of the DGCEI. The Show Cause Notice issued accused the assessee of maintaining double invoices with the same number but different dates and values, leading to discrepancies in stock registers and clearance of goods without payment of duty. The Revenue proposed demands, interest, and penalties on the company and its Managing Director. The assessee responded, denying the allegations and challenging the lack of corroborative evidence and the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demands, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal citing insufficient evidence and denial of procedural rights. The Revenue, aggrieved by this decision, filed the present appeal.

During the hearing, the Revenue argued that the double/duplicate invoices maintained by the assessee were proof of clandestine activity, as the company failed to rebut this evidence or seek cross-examination of witnesses. The Revenue emphasized the Managing Director's statement as admission of guilt. On the contrary, the Advocate for the assessee supported the Commissioner (Appeals) findings and referenced a relevant decision of the High Court to support the arguments.

The Tribunal acknowledged the legal principle that uncorroborated statements must not be used against a person without the right to cross-examine the witnesses. However, in this case, the existence of double invoices found during the search operation, along with discrepancies in stock registers, provided substantial evidence of clandestine removal. Despite the rejection of witness statements, the Tribunal found the evidence of double invoices unchallenged by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that clandestine removal could only be established concerning the double invoices, and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to rework the demand based on this evidence. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was partly allowed and partly remanded for further proceedings.

---