Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 189 - AT - Central ExciseDemand and penalty - Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods - Evidence - HELD THAT:- In this case, there is no thorough investigation, at all. In a number of rulings of the Tribunal, it has been held that for confirming clandestine production and removal, private records require corroboration. Consumption of electricity, purchase of excess raw material, evidence of purchase of unaccounted goods by buyers etc., normally establish clandestine production and removal. In this case, the entire charge rests on the packing slips recovered from the appellants. The appellants undertake job work also. Therefore, the packing slips cannot be a conclusive evidence for the production of goods on behalf of the appellants. No attempt, has been made with regard to the consumption of electricity. A reading of the Order-in-Original, indicate that the OIO has been issued on the basis of the presumptions and assumptions. In order to bring to book duty evaders, Revenue should do thorough investigations. If duty evaders do not leave any trace of their offences, we cannot presume commission of offence and penalise them. Detection of economic offence is verily a battle of wits between Revenue and trade. Adjudicating authority cannot come to the rescue of Department Officers who abdicate their responsibility. It appears as though the adjudicating authority justifies the poor investigation by the Departmental Officers. Even in respect of the confirmation of differential duty of Rs. 9,54,108/- on super enameled copper wires, there is no discussion in the findings. A perusal of the record of cross-examination, reveals the unsatisfactory quality of investigation. In these circumstances, we find that the OIO has no merits. We set aside the same and allow the appeals.
|