Tribunal allows appeal in Rs. 50 crore steel ingots case citing natural justice violation and time-barred notice

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal concerning alleged clandestine removal of steel ingots worth over Rs. 50 crores. The tribunal found that crucial documents relied upon in the show cause notice were not provided to the appellant, violating natural justice principles. Despite 20 years since the notice issuance, the department failed to produce corroborative evidence for quantification of alleged shortages and clearances. The tribunal held that clandestine manufacturing allegations require substantial evidence beyond recorded statements, which were retracted. Additionally, the show cause notice issued on 27/07/2004 was time-barred, as it came nearly three years after the September 2001 official visit, exceeding the prescribed limitation period.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-provision of relied upon documents.
2. Validity of the statement of clandestine removal.
3. Method of stock taking and corroborative evidence.
4. Delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice.

Summary:

Non-provision of Relied Upon Documents:
The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority did not provide all the documents to the Appellant despite the Tribunal's earlier directive. The Appellant had filed a letter on 13/02/2008 stating that the required documents were not made available, which was ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. This non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions rendered the Denovo Proceedings flawed.

Validity of the Statement of Clandestine Removal:
The Appellant argued that the statement of Mr. A. K. Ladia, recorded on 01/09/2001, was retracted on 05/09/2001, claiming it was made under duress. The Tribunal agreed that in view of the retraction, the statement held no evidentiary value.

Method of Stock Taking and Corroborative Evidence:
The stock taking was done visually without actual weighment, making the shortage findings unreliable. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence such as records of raw material purchases, sales, electricity consumption, or movement of vehicles. The Department's reliance on assumptions without concrete evidence was insufficient to prove clandestine removal.

Delay in Issuing the Show Cause Notice:
The Tribunal found the Show Cause Notice issued on 27/07/2004, more than two years after the initial search and statement recordings, to be unjustifiably delayed. The Department had all relevant documents by April 2002, and the delay rendered the demand barred by limitation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the demand on both merits and limitation, highlighting the Department's failure to provide necessary documents, reliance on retracted statements, lack of corroborative evidence, and unjustifiable delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the Appellant.

---