2001 (8) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty demand and penalty for alleged clandestine activities due to lack of evidence

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed against duty demand and penalty imposed for alleged clandestine processing and removal of man-made fabrics. The ... Demand - Clandestine processing and removal - Evidence Issues involved: Appeal against duty demand and penalty imposed based on alleged clandestine processing and removal of goods without payment of duty.Summary:The appeal was filed against an order confirming duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner for alleged evasion of duty through clandestine processing and removal of man-made fabrics. The appellants were engaged in processing fabrics, and discrepancies were found in diary entries related to production. The Commissioner upheld the duty demand and penalty, which the appellants contested, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and based solely on the Dyeing Master's statements and diary entries. The Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove clandestine activities and set aside the Commissioner's order.The charge against the appellants was primarily based on entries in a diary and register allegedly maintained by the Dyeing Master, without corroborative evidence. The Dyeing Master's statements were recorded during investigation without giving the appellants an opportunity to cross-examine him, rendering his evidence inadmissible. The entries in the diary did not definitively prove clandestine processing and removal, as there was no evidence of excess raw material or finished goods in the factory premises. The lack of corroboration from traders or buyers further weakened the case against the appellants.The Tribunal cited precedents where charges based on private records without concrete evidence of raw material consumption or receipt were not sustained. In the absence of substantial proof linking the diary entries to clandestine activities, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants. The Commissioner's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.Judgment delivered by: S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)