Alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods based on transporter records only; duty demand and penalties set aside.

The dominant issue was whether clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods was proved so as to sustain duty demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that clandestine manufacture/surreptitious removal must be proved beyond doubt by the Revenue, and demand cannot rest on presumptions. Reliance solely on a transporter's records to quantify alleged clearances, without positive corroboration such as evidence of receipt of all essential raw materials or other independent proof of manufacture and removal, was insufficient; mere doubt cannot substitute legal evidence. Consequently, benefit of doubt was extended, the duty demand and penalties under the Central Excise Rules were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of pan masala, demand of central excise duty, imposition of penalty.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata heard the case where the appellant did not appear, and the Revenue was represented by the ld. JDR. The case involved the confirmation of duty and imposition of a penalty on the appellant for alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of pan masala. The investigations stemmed from a raid where four bags of pan masala were seized, and loose sheets of papers indicated transactions related to pan masala. The adjudication proceedings resulted in the confiscation of the bags and a demand for central excise duty. The duty confirmed was Rs. 1,01,760, with a penalty imposed under u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsuccessful, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellants contended that the department lacked positive evidence to establish clandestine removal and violation of Central Excise Rules. They argued that the duty demand was based on presumptions and assumptions, relying on transport company records for calculating the quantity of alleged clandestine clearance.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved beyond doubt by the Revenue. The reliance on transport company records was insufficient to establish clandestine removal conclusively. The evidence presented created doubt in favor of the appellant but did not constitute legal evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellants.

Separate Judgement: None.

---