Tribunal overturns charges of clandestine manufacture due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the charge of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods against the appellants. Due to the lack of buyer statements, failure to ascertain raw material procurement, and denial of cross-examination of the supplier, the charges were deemed unsustainable. Relying on a similar precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations were speculative without concrete proof. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against demand of duty on account of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods with penalties imposed.

Analysis:
The case involved allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods without payment of duty, based on information received regarding evasion of excise duty by certain firms engaged in manufacturing Formaldehyde. The firms were found to have clandestinely supplied Formaldehyde to various manufacturers without issuing invoices, with duty liability settled through invoices issued to some traders without actual supply. Weighment slips were recalled evidencing clandestine supply, with statements from involved parties confirming the evasion. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants, alleging purchase of Formaldehyde without bills and clandestine clearance of Plywood and Plyboard without accounting for central excise duty. A demand of Rs. 2,22,13,272/- was proposed for recovery, leading to confirmation of duty demand and penalties against the appellants.

The appellant's representative argued that no incriminatory evidence was found during investigation, and no inculpatory statements were recorded. It was contended that the Revenue failed to establish procurement of other necessary inputs for manufacturing the goods clandestinely. Lack of evidence regarding electricity consumption and absence of buyer statements to prove clandestine clearance were highlighted. The representative emphasized the need for cross-examination of the supplier and challenged the validity of the impugned order.

Upon review, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to sustain the charge of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods against the appellants. The Tribunal noted the absence of buyer statements, lack of efforts to ascertain raw material procurement, and failure to allow cross-examination of the supplier. Citing a similar case precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the charges were based on assumptions and presumptions without concrete evidence. Consequently, the proceedings against the appellants were deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

In the absence of cogent evidence, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the charges were not sustainable and were solely based on assumptions. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

---