Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 990 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - requantification of the duty - recovery of 52 chits from the factory premises of the appellant - Imposition of equivalent penalty - whether there is sufficient evidence for coming to conclusion that the assessee-appellant has clandestinely removed the goods without payment of duty or otherwise - Difference of opinion - Majority order - Held that:- On perusal of the statement of all the four individuals, I find that none of them have implicated the appellant and categorically stated that there was no clandestine removal of the goods and no consideration is received by the company or any of them in cash or otherwise. In short, the entire set of statements is exculpatory. I also find that there is no dispute as to the recovery of 52 yellow chits indicating therein some figures. The said figures have been explained by Shri Suresh P. Chauhan, Folding Clerk who maintained the chits, as were provisional production figures as informed by the workers in the folding department and also includes retreatment figures which do not get reflected in the statutory record. Figures indicated in the yellow chits, may be provisional figures. This view of mine is based upon the fact that the yellow chits does not indicate any quantity recorded as clearance from the factory premises without accounting for. It is also to be noted that though the Revenue authorities have recorded statements of the individuals, they though it fit not to ask any of these people as to the difference between the figures recorded in the yellow chits and the RG-1 and whether the said difference has been clandestinely removed and if removed, to whom. In the absence of any clear indication as to removal of the said goods from the factory premises, only there being mis-match of the figures between private record and RG-1 record, cannot necessarily lead to conclusion that there was clandestine manufacture and removal. - appellant in this case in hand has made out a case that there was no clandestine removal of the goods due to there being no corroboration. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|