2005 (3) TMI 565 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of duty and penalties for the period April to June, 1997 and October to December, 1997 based on the amendment of a notification affecting the dutiability of fabrics.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellants were involved in manufacturing finished and unfinished fabrics exempt from duty until an amendment made them dutiable. Customs officers raided their premises, seized goods, and issued a show cause notice. Initially, the demand was dropped, but a fresh notice was issued based on a disclosure by the Counsel regarding certain cleared lots of fabrics.

During the proceedings, the Counsel disclosed that except for specific lot numbers, other fabrics were cleared as finished goods. However, no fresh evidence was presented to corroborate this disclosure. The duty demand was calculated based on clearances during the disputed period. The appellants denied the allegations, provided invoices showing clearances of unfinished fabrics, and argued that previous statements and documents could not be used as they had been accepted in their favor.

The Tribunal found that the Counsel's disclosure in earlier proceedings was not binding without corroborative evidence. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the need for investigation and evidence collection by the Revenue. Since the written submissions lacked appellants' signatures and conclusive proof, the impugned order alleging clandestine removal of finished goods was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of tangible evidence in determining liability and emphasized that mere admissions in previous proceedings were not sufficient without proper corroboration. The decision to set aside the order was based on the lack of substantial evidence regarding the alleged clandestine removal, granting relief to the appellants in accordance with the law.