Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 415 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - issue emerged from Difference of Opinion - Whether the findings that there are not sufficient evidences available to establish unaccounted manufacture and clandestine removal of the goods; and the demand of duty along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty on the appellant, M/S. Stovekraft Pvt. Ltd., therefore, are required to be set aside as held by Member(Judicial)? Held that: - In the instant case, it appears that the working of both the business entities was not in a proper manner. There was interchangeable in the brand names, and sometimes, the goods including the raw material too. As per the statement of Shri S.N. Lokesh, the goods are inter changeable at every stage. But at the cost of the repetition, both were separate legal entities during the period under consideration. The retraction is of course is in mild form by stating that the earlier statements were obtained under pressure. When there is a retraction of the statement of key persons, it was expected from the Department to collect some corroborative evidences. The same was not collected - it cannot be agreed that the statement need no further corroborated evidence especially when it was retracted. The Department has not collected the sufficient/corroborative evidence. Hence, there is no justification to raise the demand in the hands of SKPL. In view of the majority order, the impugned order, confirming the demand of duty against M/S. Stovekraft Pvt. Ltd. and imposing penalty upon them as also on Shri Rajendra J. Gandhi, Managing Director, is set aside. Appeal allowed.
|