Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 170 - CESTAT NEW DELHIShortage in stock and raw material - Clandestine removal of goods - Non verification of statement of assesse - Held that:- Revenue’s entire case is based upon the alleged shortages detected at the time of visit of officers, read with statement of partner recorded on 10-1-2011. However, it is seen that on 11-1-2011, the said partner addressed a letter to their Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, the concerned officer, making reference to the visit of officers in his factory and clarifying that though he had given the explanation that short found goods were lying red hot in the furnace but the officers did not make any verification of the same. there is no evidence to show that furnace area was also checked to verify the fact that as to whether any final product was lying there or not. It is otherwise also seen that to weigh such heavy stock of raw material as also the final product, the inventory are required to be made and that such heavy stock cannot be weighed. There is no evidence on record to show as to how such weighment was undertaken by the visiting officers. There is no evidence of clandestine removal except the alleged shortages, which are also doubted. In the absence of evidence of clandestine removal, the confirmation of demand of duty based upon the alleged doubtful shortages read with statement of authorised person recorded at the time of search of the factory itself, cannot be considered to be sufficient evidence so as to lead to inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal. Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I v. Silvertone Papers Ltd. - [2013 (3) TMI 184 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has considered the entire case law on the issue and has held that the alleged shortages read with statement of one of authorised representative, cannot be held to be sufficient evidence so as to uphold the finding of clandestine removal. Revenue, after recording the statement, which stand retracted immediately on the next date, has not bothered to make further investigation and to record statement of persons who are actually concerned with the manufacture of goods as also of the clearance and marketing of the same. No identity of the buyers of the raw material, etc., stand identified. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assesse.
|