Department fails to prove clandestine TV manufacturing beyond reasonable doubt, statements insufficient evidence

The CESTAT Mumbai held that the department failed to establish clandestine manufacture and removal of TV sets beyond reasonable doubt. The case relied primarily on statements and circumstantial evidence, which were insufficient to prove the allegations. The HC found that recorded statements cannot be relied upon, and mere recovery of TV parts and equipment does not constitute corroborative evidence. The department's failure to verify buyer details through provided records rather than internet searches weakened their case. Additionally, the show cause notice issued in 2020 was time-barred as the department had knowledge of alleged facts since 2016 when DRI initiated investigation. The extended limitation period was improperly invoked. The duty demand, interest, and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Justification for issuing a belated show cause notice invoking the extended period.
2. Attribution of suppression in the facts and circumstances.
3. Establishment of clandestine manufacture and removal of TV sets beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification for Issuing a Belated Show Cause Notice:

The appellant contested the invocation of the extended period for issuing the show cause notice, arguing that the facts were known to the department in 2016, yet the notice was issued on 28.9.2020. The tribunal agreed, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise, which states that once facts are known to authorities, they cannot be considered suppressed in subsequent notices. The tribunal concluded that the show cause notice was time-barred and not sustainable, as the department was aware of the alleged misdeclaration since 2016.

2. Attribution of Suppression:

The tribunal found no evidence of suppression by the appellant. The facts were within the department's knowledge since 2016, as evidenced by the DRI's investigation and the issuance of a show cause notice by DRI on 15.7.2016. The tribunal emphasized that the department cannot claim suppression to justify invoking the extended period when it had prior knowledge of the facts.

3. Establishment of Clandestine Manufacture and Removal:

The tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented by the department, which relied heavily on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the presence of certain facilities in the appellant's godown. The tribunal found these statements unreliable, as they were retracted during cross-examination and lacked corroborative evidence. The tribunal also noted the absence of tangible evidence, such as excess raw materials, unaccounted finished goods, or proof of actual transportation of goods, which are essential to establish clandestine manufacture and removal.

The tribunal criticized the department's reliance on assumptions and the lack of corroborative evidence linking the appellant to clandestine activities. It highlighted that the presence of wooden tables and electrical points in the godown did not constitute evidence of manufacturing. Furthermore, the tribunal dismissed the department's argument based on the Settlement Commission's order, stating that proceedings before the Settlement Commission differ from adjudication and cannot be used to prove allegations in a separate proceeding.

In conclusion, the tribunal found that the department failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal. The duty demand, interest, and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The show cause notice was deemed unsustainable on both factual and legal grounds, including the issue of limitation.

---