Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 638 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine production and removal - MS ingots - shortage of inputs and finished goods - retraction of statements - no proper investigations carried out - cross-examination of various persons denied - demand based kn assumptions and presumptions - Held that:- Revenue has made the case of clandestine removal of the manufactured goods and subsequent raising of demand on such huge quantity of without properly corroborating evidences on record. After going through the impugned order, it is found that the entire show cause notice is based on the stock taking report and the various statements recorded from the Authorised Representative, Transporter and Director of the appellant company. There is no evidence regarding any movement of goods by trucks or any other means to and from the factory of the appellant. No adequate enquiry or investigation from the transporter was carried out by the department. It is also on record that the department has got the complete address of most of the buyer of the appellant who are well known established concerns. However, there was no investigation regarding receipt of the said quantity which were alleged to be cleared by the appellant - No evidence was brought during the investigation regarding any evidence of receipt of money by the appellant as there was no seizure of cash at all. From the investigation, it is clear that in the present case, no evidence has been gathered by the Revenue. The allegation of clandestine removal of finished goods and the raw material are based purely on the assumption and presumption and surmises and conjecture. No corroborative evidence was adduced by the Revenue in support of alleged clandestine removal of the goods. It is well settled that the charge of clandestine removal is a serious charge and the demand cannot be made on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures and assumption and presumption. Non-accountal of the receipt of raw material or clandestine removal of the goods cannot be on the basis of presumption. Further, in the alleged clearance of 19352.552 of final product is based upon the show cause notice issued of SSSIL alleging the manufacture and clearance of 18501.04 MT of sponge iron to the appellant. We find that the reliance placed on the another show cause notice without further corroboration is of no use in the present case. Even it is on the record that the document on which the clandestine removal and manufacture is fastened on the appellant has been recovered from the guest house of the employee of M/s SSSIL this at the best as 3rd party evidence and the reliance on which cannot be without the further corroboration. It is also on record that the ld. adjudicating authority has denied the cross-examination asked by the appellant - The admissibility of the evidence without following the procedure established under Section 9(D)(i) of the Act, is not admissible as a evidence in the investigation proceeding as mentioned in para 4.2 of order - Also in this case, raw material for the manufacture of the ingot by the appellant has come from the State of Orissa. No evidence on transport whatsoever has been gathered by the Revenue about the transport of the goods from the one state to another state which is well documented at the check post of two states. Impugned order is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|