Tribunal confirms clandestine removal, imposes penalty on recipients. Evidence from transport docs & test reports deemed sufficient.

The tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming allegations of clandestine removal by M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt Ltd (SPPL) and imposing a penalty on M/s Victor Hitech (VH) as recipients of the goods. The evidence, primarily from transport documents and test reports, was deemed adequate. The tribunal also ruled that the demand was raised within the permissible period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. As a result, the appeals were rejected, and the impugned order was affirmed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of clandestine removal of goods by M/s Sanghi Polymers Pvt Ltd (SPPL).
2. Imposition of penalty on M/s Victor Hitech (VH) as recipients of clandestinely removed goods.
3. Adequacy of evidence supporting clandestine removal.
4. Applicability of limitation period for raising demand.

Detailed Analysis:

Clandestine Removal Allegation Against SPPL:
The case revolves around the allegation that SPPL clandestinely removed jumbo rolls of BOPP adhesive films by misdeclaring the length of the rolls in their invoices, thereby underpaying Central Excise duty. The Directorate General of Anti Evasion (DGCEI) conducted searches and issued a show cause notice based on the discrepancies found between the declared lengths and the actual lengths of the rolls transported, as evidenced by Goods Consignment Notes (GCNs) and test reports.

Penalty on VH:
VH, as the recipient of the clandestinely removed goods, was also penalized. The investigation included statements from the transporters and computer printouts which indicated the actual quantity of goods transported. The correlation between the length and weight of the rolls, as clarified by SPPL's Vice President, was used to substantiate the claims of clandestine removal.

Evidence Adequacy:
The appellant argued that no incriminating documents were found during the search of SPPL, and the evidence relied upon was primarily from transport documents and statements made in earlier proceedings. The department countered that the transport documents and test reports provided sufficient proof of clandestine removal. The tribunal found that the GCNs, which recorded the actual weight of the transported goods, were reliable evidence. The correlation between the weight and length of the rolls, as stated by SPPL's Vice President, supported the department's case. The tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of clandestine removal based on the transport documents and test reports.

Limitation Period for Raising Demand:
The appellant contended that the demand was raised beyond the permissible period, arguing that it should be within one year from when the department became aware of the alleged clandestine removal. The tribunal clarified that under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, the demand can be raised within five years in cases involving suppression of facts, fraud, or collusion. The tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument and upheld the demand as being within the permissible period.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the allegations of clandestine removal by SPPL and the penalty on VH. It found that the evidence, primarily based on transport documents and corroborated by test reports, was sufficient to establish clandestine removal. The tribunal also ruled that the demand was raised within the appropriate limitation period as prescribed by law. The appeals were rejected, and the impugned order was affirmed.

Order:
The impugned order is upheld, and the appeals are rejected.

---