Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1173 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - bars/ rods - demand on the basis of the loose documents recovered from the premises - corroborative evidences or not - Burden to prove - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the premises of SSSRM were search on 10.09.2005. 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 which got recovered from the premises of SSSRM. There appears neither corroborative evidence to support those loose & handwritten documents nor any evidence to connect them to the alleged guilt of the appellant or to the alleged guilt of M/s. RIGL where the appellant is director. 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 M/s.SSSRM without discharging their liability. It becomes clear that there is no admission by the appellant for the alleged clandestine removal. Hence, the onus was upon the Department to produce the positive evidence from the appellant’s record and premises. But, it is simultaneously clear that no other evidence from the transporter or raw-material provider or the purchaser has been collected by the Department - 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. Invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is held that apparently and admittedly appellant was regularly filing the returns. Hence, the facts were regularly brought to the notice of the Department. But 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 issued invoking the greater period is therefore, held to be barred by time. The adjudication based thereupon cannot sustain. The order under challenge fails on merits as well as on technical issue of limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|