2000 (5) TMI 315 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty demand & penalty citing insufficient evidence, directs reevaluation of crucial bank correspondence.

The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellants due to a discrepancy in stock figures, citing insufficient evidence without ... Demand - Clandestine removal Issues involved: Duty demand based on discrepancy in stock figures, penalty imposition, failure to consider corroborative evidence, remand order compliance.Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition:The authorities confirmed a duty demand against the appellants due to a discrepancy in finished goods stock figures between monthly statements and the RG 1 Register, alleging clandestine clearance without duty payment. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed. The Tribunal initially held that the demand solely based on stock differences was insufficient without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to allow the appellants to examine relevant documents and have a personal hearing.Compliance with Remand Order:After the remand, the Additional Collector upheld the duty demand and increased the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-, citing the same grounds as before. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed this decision, claiming reliance on corroborative evidence. However, it was observed that the authorities failed to consider the Tribunal's direction to evaluate the correspondence file from the Punjab National Bank. The Tribunal found that the orders did not address the insufficiency of evidence highlighted in its previous ruling, thus setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.This summary outlines the legal judgment involving duty demand, penalty imposition, compliance with remand orders, and the necessity for corroborative evidence in such cases.