2021 (2) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the array of parties is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 4. This Appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 22 March 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 arising out of order in original dated 11 November 2011. 5. The following questions of law have been framed for our consideration. "1. Whether a case of clandestine clearance of excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty is required to be established on the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt" or on the principle of "preponderance of probability". 2. Whether clandestine clearance of exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd-disks was collected, statements of staff members were also recorded and the staff members gave their explanations. Thereafter, further searches were carried out, which resulted in a show cause notice dated 26 March 2010. The show cause notice directed the Respondent to show cause why an amount of Rs. 2.82 Crores towards Central Excise Duty alleged to have been evaded should not be recovered and penalty should not be imposed on the Directors. The Adjudicating Authority proceeded to adjudicate and confirmed the demands under several heads by the order dated 11 November 2011. The Respondent, the Directors and the Transporters filed appeals, which were heard together by the Tribunal and allowed by the impugned order dated 22 March 2016. 7....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent. Thus, the Tribunal rightly found that there were serious lacunae. 9. As regards the second demand of Rs. 65.85 Lakh, the Tribunal found that the documents recovered from the Octroi Department were only photocopies. The statements of transporters were without reference to any documentary evidence. Even the transporters were not allowed to be cross-examined. In respect of the demand of Rs. 55.92 Lakh, no investigation was carried out at the end of the consignee. The demand of Rs. 58 Lakh was based on theoretical calculations. Further the smallest demands of Rs. 4,61,000/- and Rs. 2,40,575/- were also based on statements whose Authors were not offered for cross-examination. 10. The Tribunal also found that the evidence stated to ha....