Allegation of clandestine removal not proven, appellants entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE.

The tribunal held that the allegation of clandestine removal of finished goods was not proven with positive evidence, leading to a lack of substantiation. It was found that the shortages were not actual but notional, and the appellants were entitled to an exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The demand for Central Excise duty and penalties was deemed invalid, and the entire demand was considered time-barred. As a result, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of clandestine removal of finished goods.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16-03-1995.
3. Validity of the demand for Central Excise duty and penalties.
4. Time-barred nature of the demand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of Clandestine Removal of Finished Goods:
The department alleged that the appellants had clandestinely removed finished goods valued at Rs. 22,76,79,686/- based on shortages found during stock verification. The appellants argued that the charge of clandestine clearance cannot be sustained as it must be proven with positive evidence, which was lacking. They highlighted that no panchnama was drawn, no unaccounted raw materials were identified, no transporters or buyers of the unaccounted goods were found, and no cash trail was established. The tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that clandestine clearance is a serious charge requiring clinching evidence, which was absent in this case.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16-03-1995:
The department contended that the notification was not applicable as it only applied to 'inputs' and not 'finished goods.' The appellants countered that the notification's definition of 'input' includes all goods covered in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which includes DI pipes. The tribunal found that the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was applicable to the DI pipes as they were captively consumed in the manufacture of dutiable finished goods.

3. Validity of the Demand for Central Excise Duty and Penalties:
The department issued a show cause notice demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 2,81,41,208/- along with interest and proposed penalties. The appellants argued that the shortages were not real but notional due to minor weighment errors accumulated over the years. They provided logical explanations for the shortages, including the recycling of damaged DI pipes which were reflected in the RG1/DSA and ER-1 returns. The tribunal found that the shortages were not actual but only notional and hence, no differential duty was payable. Additionally, the tribunal noted that the Managing Director, Shri Aditya Jajodia, was not involved in day-to-day operations, and therefore, no penalty could be imposed on him.

4. Time-barred Nature of the Demand:
The appellants contended that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 15.09.2016 for alleged clearances in 2012. They argued that there was no ground for alleging deliberate mis-statement or suppression of facts to invoke the extended period. The tribunal agreed, noting that the shortages were noticed in December 2012, and the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, making the demand time-barred.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the charge of clandestine clearance could not be sustained due to lack of positive evidence. The shortages detected were deemed notional rather than actual, and the appellants were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The demand for duty and penalties was invalid, and the entire demand was time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

---