2001 (6) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants due to insufficient evidence, setting aside Commissioner's demands.

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, as the Revenue failed to substantiate the charges of suppression of production, removal of dutiable goods ... Demand - Clandestine removal - Evidence - Valuation (Central Excise) Issues Involved: 1. Suppression of production and clandestine removal of goods.2. Removal of dutiable goods in the guise of exempted goods.3. Undervaluation of goods by sale through a related person.4. Artificial fragmentation of units to avail SSI exemption.Summary:Issue 1: Suppression of Production and Clandestine RemovalThe Department based its case on eight small notebooks maintained by the Chemist, Mr. R. Settu, indicating day-to-day production. The Commissioner relied on these notebooks and statements from various individuals, including Mr. A. Murugesan and Mr. M. Chakravarthy. The appellants argued that the notebooks did not reflect actual production and were not corroborated by other evidence such as purchase of inputs, use of electric power, or employment of labor. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's reliance on average production figures was flawed and that the statements did not provide incriminating evidence. The Tribunal held that the private notebooks could not be accepted as reliable evidence for confirming the demands.Issue 2: Removal of Dutiable Goods in the Guise of Exempted GoodsThe appellants presented invoices and bank statements to show that duty had been correctly paid on dutiable goods. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not provide a clear finding on this issue and that the appellants' records indicated that sales were made through invoices and payments were received via cheques. The Tribunal concluded that the charge of removing dutiable goods in the guise of exempted goods was not substantiated.Issue 3: Undervaluation of Goods by Sale Through a Related PersonThe appellants argued that M/s. Aksol Chemicals was not a related person and provided partnership deeds to show that the firm had been reorganized with independent partners. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not adequately address this issue and that the appellants provided evidence showing that the prices of goods sold to Aksol Chemicals were consistent with those sold to third parties. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' contention that Aksol Chemicals was not a related person.Issue 4: Artificial Fragmentation of Units to Avail SSI ExemptionThe Commissioner found that each unit was independent with no mutuality of interest and dropped the charge of artificial fragmentation. The Tribunal upheld this finding, confirming that the units were independent and not dummy units.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to prove the charges in the show cause notice due to lack of substantial evidence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.