2023 (1) TMI 1136 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal partially allowed in Central Excise case, evidentiary requirements clarified.

SHREEJEE PACKAGING COMPANY Versus C.C.E. & S.T. - DAMAN

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, sustaining the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 57,222.17 where the appellant's involvement was ... Clandestine removal - PP Rolls/ Tubes - recovery of illicit documents from transporter - existence of evidence to indicate the involvement of the appellant in illicit clearance - HELD THAT:- The entire case was made out on the basis of certain LRs recovered from the transporters. The transporters stated in their statement that they used to supply the goods from Shreejee Packaging Company as well as some other companies also. All the LRs do not show the name of the appellant. However, in some of the LRs the name of the appellant is appearing. As regard all the other transactions where the appellant’s name is not appearing, no other corroborative evidence was brought on record, therefore, in those cases demand cannot be sustained. The demand of duty on the LRs where the appellant’s name is appearing which comes to Rs.57,222.17 is sustained and remaining demand of Rs.4,29,399 is not sustainable, hence the demand of Rs.4,29,399 is set aside. The appellant is liable to pay equal amount of penalty i.e. Rs.57,222.17 and interest thereon - Appeal allowed in part. Issues: Alleged illicit removal of excisable goods without payment of duty; Confirmation of demand by Assistant Commissioner; Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the order-in-original.In the case at hand, the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of PP Rolls/Tubes falling under the Central Excise Tariff Act, was alleged to have been involved in the illicit removal of excisable goods without payment of duty. The investigation, based on intelligence and directions from the Additional Commissioner, led to the issuance of a show cause notice proposing a demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,86,622. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposed interest, and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to file the present appeal.During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that the case was primarily built on documents recovered from transporters, with no evidence found at the appellant's factory. It was highlighted that the documents did not consistently implicate the appellant, and without concrete evidence linking them to the alleged illicit clearances, the demand was unjustly confirmed. The counsel pointed out discrepancies in the documents and statements, emphasizing the lack of proof of the appellant's involvement in all transactions under scrutiny.The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the confirmation of the demand by the Assistant Commissioner. However, upon thorough examination of the submissions and records, the Tribunal observed that the case heavily relied on certain transport documents. While some of these documents implicated the appellant, others did not, lacking corroborative evidence to establish their involvement in those transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal sustained the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 57,222.17 where the appellant's name appeared, setting aside the remaining demand of Rs. 4,29,399. The appellant was directed to pay the penalty equal to the sustained demand and the applicable interest.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order to reflect the sustained demand based on the evidence directly linking the appellant to certain transactions, while dismissing the demand lacking substantial proof of their involvement. The judgment, delivered on 23.01.2023, provided clarity on the evidentiary requirements for establishing liability in cases of alleged excise duty evasion.