Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 347 - AT - Central ExciseSuppression of production and clandestine removal - bars/ rods - MS Ingots - entire case is on the basis of wrong allegation based upon the documents recovered from third party - HELD THAT:- The documents recovered from the premises, based whereupon the show cause notice was issued, admittedly are in the form of loose parchies and in the form of hand written ledger book that too those got recovered from the premises of SSSRM. There appears no corroborative evidence to support those loose & handwritten documents. Nor any evidence to connect them to the alleged guilt of the appellant. The statement of appellant, Smt. Sunita Devi, was recovered in June, 2005. There appears no acknowledgement on her part about she being involved in the alleged collusion with SSSRM for the alleged clandestine removal except for the raw material to have been delivered to SSSRM - the entire burden was that of the Department to prove that the appellant have been clearing the raw material from their premises and were getting the same delivered to SSSRM without discharging their liability. The demand against the appellant has been confirmed solely on the ground that the Director of the appellant could not indicate any reason as to why the entries in the private record of SSSRM mention appellant’s name, the same finding are definitely presumptive finding. The order is not discussing any documents of the appellant proving the alleged clandestine removal on part of the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority has merely relied upon the statement of the Director. Resultantly the confirmation of demand is merely based on third party evidence. In the present case also there is no evidence either from the transporter or inquiry with respect to the output of SSSRM. In such circumstances, the allegation of clandestine clearance even for the quantity as that to 201.165 MT has wrongly been confirmed - the demand even against a smaller quantity of 201.165 MT of ingots though much larger quantity of 9551.278 MT of ingots was otherwise alleged to have clandestinely removed, has wrongly been confirmed. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Apparently and admittedly appellant was regularly filing the returns. There is nothing produced on record by the Department to show any positive act on part of the appellant which may amount to suppression of relevant facts. Resultantly, the demand for a period of more than one year could not have been made. Department could not have invoked the extended period of limitation. Show cause notice is therefore held to be barred by time. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|