Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1520 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine Removal - MS Ingots - excess consumption of electricity - demand based on third party evidence - penalty on Director - HELD THAT:- Since the drop of demand qua excess electricity consumption has not been objected on the part of the Department, there is no appeal filed otherwise. Demand based on third party evidence - the case of Revenue is based upon the statement of the representative of M/s. Monu Steels i.e. the third party evidence and the documents recovered from their premises - HELD THAT:- Admittedly no search or recovery got conducted in appellant’s premises. The law i.e. as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, is well established - The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/S. CONTINENTAL CEMENT COMPANY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2014 (9) TMI 243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that the charge of clandestine removal is a serious charge, which is required to be proved by the Revenue by tangible and the sufficient evidence. It was clarified by the Hon’ble Tribunal that mere statements of buyers that too based on memories were not sufficient without support of any documentary evidence - Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while relying upon third party evidence to confirm the demand qua service charge of clandestine removal. Since the demand has been set aside, the question of imposition of any penalty on the Director of the company does not arise - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|