Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 418 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - demand on the basis of third party records - corroborative evidences or not - time limitation - Section 11(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- It is found from the contents of the Show Cause Notice that the allegations are based on record maintained by a third party. The said record did not bear full name of the Appellant. But the authorities assumed that the short name mentioned in the documents was that of the Appellant. Therefore, the demand was made against the Appellant solely on presumption and assumption, without any corroborative evidence placed on record. No demand can be sustained solely on the basis of privately maintained, third party records. Merely because the investigating authorities found certain private records maintained by M/s. Pankaj Ispat Ltd. (PIL) and tacit admission of M/s. PIL regarding receipt of goods without cover of Invoice and without payment of Duty, from a party having similar name to that of the Appellant, cannot conclusively prove that the Appellant has indeed cleared finished products clandestinely, without payment of Duty, to M/s. PIL. Thus, it has been consistently held that demands of whatever nature cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of thirds party evidence/record - The Revenue has clearly failed to corroborate with reasonable accuracy the aspect of production and clandestine removal by the Appellant. Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The matter was in the knowledge of the Revenue right from 19-9-2012, when the Statement of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Director of M/s. PIL was recorded and the sole piece of evidence in the shape of his records, was withdrawn by the officers. Thereafter, a Statement dated 12-12-2013 of Ms. Permanand Sahu, Accountant and Authorized Signatory of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue was sleeping on the issue and could not adduce a single piece of evidence against the Appellant and issued the Show Cause Notice as late as on 3-2-2016 - Therefore, the Show Cause Notice dated 3-2-2016 issued after four years is hopelessly barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|