TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The shortage of finished goods arrived at by the officials was quantified and value was adduced and Excise Duty of Rs.1.07 Crores was demanded by way of Show Cause Notice issued on 04.12.2007. After due process, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf the Appellant submits that the details of alleged shortage is as per Annexure -N to the Show Cause Notice. However, the Department failed to give working sheets as to how this shortage was arrived at by them. He submits that the Appellant sought the copies of the working sheets vide their letters dated 22.12.2008, 07.01.2009, 25.02.2009, 19.03.2009 and 05.05.2009 [copies enclosed with the Appeal Book]. Vide their letter dated 25.02.2009, they have also sought cross-examination of 25 persons named therein who were part of the stock-taking and investigation. The Ld. Counsel submits that the detailed working sheet was not made available for quite some time and subsequently 110 pages of illegible working sheet was provided because of which the Appellant was not in a position to effectively counter the allegations contained in the Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, the Revenue has to come up with corroborative evidence towards the purchase of raw materials on cash, manufacture of goods without being accounted for, movement of the alleged clandestine removals by way of vehicles, cash receipt towards sales of alleged clandestinely removed goods etc. No private records, chits or diary etc. were recovered towards the alleged clandestine removals. Thus, the Department has absolutely no back-up with corroborative evidence towards the allegation of clandestine removals. He relies on the following case law:- a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Minakshi Castings [2011 (274) E.L.T. 180 (All.)] b) Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Ludhiana v. Anand Founders & Engineers [2016 (331) E.L.T. 340 (P & H)] c) Super Forgings & Steel Ltd. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV [2024 (1) TMI 448 - CESTAT KOLKATA] 5. He also submits that the Show Cause Notice issued on 04.12.2007 is time barred. The stock-taking has been conducted on 13.01.2005 and no further investigation was taken up for issuing the Show Cause Notice, wherein the demand is purely based on the alleged shortage found on 13.01.2005. He relies on the case of law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y removed goods, who would have been purchasing the same on cash basis. In the absence of any corroborative evidence whatsoever, the allegation of clandestine removal would have no legs to stand on. 11. Further, the Appellant is a reputed Public Limited Company with a history of more than 85 years employing more than 400 workers and is a professionally managed company. If the stock-taking has been recorded officially in the stock registers, then they would be responsible to ensure that Excise Duty is paid then the stocks are cleared. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, it is not believable that when anyone who wants to take up clandestine removal, would account for the goods in the stock register. Such person would not enter the stocks in the register and clear it directly on cash sale basis. The very fact that they have recorded the entire stock in their stock register, would go on to show that they have nothing to hide. In the present case, except for the allegation towards shortage, the Revenue has not been able to provide any other evidence to fortify their allegation that the goods in question have been cleared without payment of excise duty. 12. This Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en retracted by him. Thus it loses its evidentiary value as held by Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd. cited supra. Therefore, we see no merits in the impugned order and set aside the same on merits." [emphasis supplied] 13. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Meerut-II vs. VAM Organic & Chemical Ltd. [2016 (342) E.L.T. 174 (All.)], has held as under:- "4. In the present case also, we find that Sri M.L.N. Shrinivas, Senior Vice-President of Assessee in the statement dated 8-4-1999 recorded under Section 14 of Act, 1944 did not dispute shortage and said that he is not aware of reasons for the said shortage. He voluntarily debited the amount. It is this statement of Shrinivas which has been treated to be a clear admission and merely on that basis liability has been imposed. In our view, when shortage is there the mere factum of shortage cannot justify an inference of clandestine removal of molasses but in order to attribute an act of clandestine removal upon Assessee either there must be a clear admission to this effect on the part of Assessee or its representative or it must be corroborated by furth....