2025 (5) TMI 54 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - shortage of goods - non-appreciation of facts and evidence - non-speaking order - based on recovery of certain documents and explanation/corroboration in terms of statements of the relevant persons of the company as well as that of dealers receiving such clandestinely removed goods - irregular availment of credit - HELD THAT - The whole case is based on recovery of private records showing certain production of excisable goods their clearances and also receipt on payment etc. in relation to such clandestinely removed goods. The department has also adduced evidence to support as to from where the raw materials were brought in without accounting for the same which have been used for manufacture of certain unaccounted furniture cleared to some of the dealers who have also corroborated the same by admitting that they have received certain chairs without payment of duty and in respect of some they have paid to the appellant in cash - when clandestine removal takes place there has to be certain amount of clandestine production and also use of certain unaccounted raw materials etc. without taking them on record. Similarly when clandestine clearances take place the sale proceeds cannot be reflected in their regular accounts. The detailed investigation has clearly brought out various evidences in this regards as discussed in detail by the Adjudicating Authority. It is also found that authenticity and veracity of these private records have not been denied by the Managing Director of the appellant himself and in fact it gets further corroborated by the statements made even by the people who are not the employees of the appellant company. It is found that the various objections taken by the appellant are having one common theme that the entire case is based on self incriminating statements and there is no corroborative evidence. It is failed to understand that when the Managing Director himself has admitted the veracity of all the documents relied upon as also the relied upon statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act where is the room for doubting the conclusion drawn based on those documents. It is also an admitted fact that none of these statements have been retracted. In the case of CCE Mumbai Vs Champion Confectionery 2010 (2) TMI 1044 - CESTAT MUMBAI the Bench inter alia upheld the demand of duty in respect of clandestine removal of goods relying on the statements even when the said statements were retracted by the people who made the statements. While evaluating various evidences including statements etc. it held that evidence relating to excess unaccounted stock found on the date of visit and the quantum of unaccounted clearances on certain date itself can be reasonable to conclude that the clandestine clearances are substantial. In the case of CCE Mumbai Vs Kalvert Foods India Pvt Ltd 2011 (8) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has dealt with demand on the basis of clandestine removal wherein the reliance was placed on the statement of managing director buyer and production supervisor. The Hon ble Supreme Court inter alia made an observation that for the statements made before Central Excise officer cannot be considered looked into and relied upon. Essentially what emerges from the judgments cited is that when there is clear-cut admitted position and facts in terms of statements recorded by the responsible persons admitting narration in such private records the conclusion drawn based on said documents along with statements of corroborative nature in itself would be sufficient evidence for alleging clandestine removal. It is obvious that in the case of clandestine manufacture and removal it cannot be proved with mathematical precision and therefore preponderance of probability in itself would be a good ground for establishing the allegation unless it has been rebutted strongly with the cogent evidence to the contrary. In the present appeal each and every argument and defence taken by the appellant has been considered and examined by the Adjudicating Authority before arriving at his conclusion. Therefore there are no infirmity in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority except to the extent of not excluding the amount from the confirmed demand where the demand itself has been dropped on merit. Conclusion - The demand of duty and penalties upheld based on a holistic evaluation of private records admissions by the Managing Director and key employees corroborative statements of dealers and suppliers and consistent application of legal principles regarding clandestine manufacture and removal and irregular credit availment. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal revolve around the following issues:

1. Whether the appellants engaged in clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods without payment of duty, based on recovered private records, statements of company officials, dealers, and suppliers.

2. Whether the appellants irregularly availed Cenvat credit on inputs not actually received or used in manufacture.

3. The validity and reliability of evidence, including private records and statements, especially those that are self-incriminatory or retracted.

4. The applicability of penalty provisions under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, particularly on the Managing Director and other individuals connected with the clandestine activities.

5. The quantum of duty demand and its calculation, including whether any amounts should be excluded due to prior order modifications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Excise Goods

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal relied on established principles from precedents that clandestine manufacture and removal need not be proved with mathematical precision but on the preponderance of probabilities. Cases cited include Ramachandra Rexins Pvt Ltd, CCE Mumbai vs Champion Confectionery, and Alagappa Cements Pvt Ltd, which confirm that private records, corroborated by statements, are sufficient to establish clandestine activity.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that private records recovered from the appellant's premises, maintained by responsible employees (such as the Regional Manager and Marketing Executive), contained detailed entries of production, clearance, and cash receipts for goods cleared without invoices. These records were admitted by the Managing Director and other key employees. Statements of dealers corroborated receipt of goods without invoices and cash payments. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority correctly appreciated this evidence and rightly concluded clandestine manufacture and removal.

Key Evidence and Findings: Private records B-56, B-47, B-58, B-59, B-61, and B-62 detailed clandestine clearances and cash collections. Statements of Mr. Anand Rao (Regional Manager), Mr. K. Chinna Rao (Marketing Executive), dealers, and the Managing Director admitted discrepancies and unaccounted sales. The Managing Director also voluntarily paid Rs.10 lakhs towards duty liability, acknowledging responsibility.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that clandestine activities are hidden and evidence is often indirect. The admitted private records and corroborative statements satisfied the burden on the department under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the statements were self-incriminatory and unreliable, noting that none were retracted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant challenged the authenticity and completeness of private records and statements, alleging lack of corroboration and procedural defects. The Tribunal found these arguments unpersuasive, given the consistent admissions and supporting evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the Managing Director's acceptance of the records and statements precluded doubting their veracity.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the finding of clandestine manufacture and removal, confirming the duty demand based on the private records and corroborative evidence.

2. Irregular Availment of Cenvat Credit

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to principles that credit can be denied if inputs are not actually received or used in manufacture. Precedents such as Gopal Industries Ltd and others support reliance on statements and documentary evidence to establish irregular credit.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Adjudicating Authority found that the appellants availed credit on inputs not received or used, supported by statements of suppliers (e.g., M/s Gowra Petrochemicals) and internal private records showing cash receipts without corresponding material receipt. The Managing Director admitted unaccounted cash receipts and irregular credit. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence to rebut these findings.

Key Evidence and Findings: Private record B-48 showed cash deposits linked to M/s Gowra Petrochemicals, corroborated by statements of the supplier and appellant's accountant. Statements of the Managing Director and finance manager admitted unaccounted receipts and irregular credit. The appellant failed to produce positive evidence to disprove the allegations.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that the burden shifts to the appellant to prove innocence once the department establishes prima facie irregular credit. The appellant's failure to produce evidence or explanations led to confirmation of the demand.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that raw materials were received and that discrepancies arose from differences between issue and consumption records. The Tribunal rejected this, noting the Managing Director's admissions and lack of credible rebuttal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the demand for irregular credit availed on inputs not received or used.

3. Validity and Reliance on Statements and Private Records

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to multiple judgments including the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE, Mumbai vs Kalvert Foods India Pvt Ltd, which held that statements recorded by Central Excise officers are admissible and reliable unless retracted under duress. The Tribunal also noted the principle that in clandestine cases, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Managing Director and other responsible persons admitted the authenticity of private records and statements. None of the statements were retracted. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that the statements were self-incriminatory and hence unreliable, emphasizing the voluntary nature of admissions and corroboration by independent witnesses.

Key Evidence and Findings: Statements under section 14 of the Central Excise Act from dealers, suppliers, and company officials consistently corroborated the private records and the department's case. The Tribunal found no evidence of coercion or duress in recording statements.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the settled legal principle that in quasi-judicial proceedings, evidence on preponderance of probability suffices. The corroborated admissions and private records formed a reliable basis for findings.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's arguments on lack of corroboration and self-incrimination were rejected as untenable in light of the evidence and legal precedents.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the reliance on statements and private records as valid evidence for confirming duty demand and penalties.

4. Imposition of Penalty on Managing Director and Others

Legal Framework and Precedents: Penalties under Rule 26 and 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, are imposed for violations including clandestine removal and irregular availment of credit. Precedents such as Sri Rama Machinery Corporation Ltd and Global Spin Weave Ltd support imposition of penalty on persons in charge who fail to prevent violations.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Managing Director was fully aware of the irregularities, as evidenced by his statements and admissions. He had overall control and responsibility for the company's operations and failed to prevent the violations. Similarly, penalties on other individuals connected with dealers and suppliers were justified.

Key Evidence and Findings: Statements of the Managing Director admitting knowledge and responsibility, coupled with the evidence of clandestine activities, justified penalty imposition.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that persons in charge who knowingly allow or fail to prevent violations are liable for penalties. The absence of cogent defense or explanation led to confirmation of penalties.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant failed to provide any credible evidence to negate the Managing Director's knowledge or involvement.

Conclusion: Penalties imposed on the Managing Director and others were upheld.

5. Quantum of Demand and Modifications

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had set aside certain demands (e.g., relating to reprocessed granules) but failed to exclude the corresponding amount from the total demand. The Tribunal modified the order to exclude such amounts accordingly.

Conclusion: The overall demand was upheld except for the amounts already dropped, which were excluded from the total confirmed demand.

Significant Holdings

"In a case of clandestine activity involving suppression of production and clandestine removal, it is not expected that such evasion has to be established by Department in mathematical precision. After all, a person indulging in clandestine activity takes sufficient precaution to hide/destroy the evidence. The evidence available shall be those left in spite of the best care taken by the persons involved in such clandestine activity. In such a situation, the entire facts and circumstances of the case have to be looked into and a decision has to be arrived at on the yardstick of 'preponderance of probability' and not on the yardstick of 'beyond reasonable doubt', as the decision is being rendered in quasi- judicial proceedings."

"The inference drawn by the second respondent based on shortage of clinkers and the excess quantity of limestone quarried during the relevant period was sufficient enough for the authorities to conclude as to the ultimate quantity of Portland cement which could have been produced from such excess quantity, which were not noted in the stock register, was well justified and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in such a conclusion drawn by the authorities for the levy of duty and the demand of duty imposed."

"No further corroboration was required in view of the clinching nature of the oral and documentary evidence establishing clandestine production and removal of the tin containers by the appellant."

"The statements were recorded by the Central Excise Officers and they were not police officers. Therefore, such statements made by the Managing Director of the Company and other persons containing all the details about the functioning of the company which could be made only with personal knowledge of the respondents and therefore could not have been obtained through coercion or duress or through dictation. We see no reason why the aforesaid statements made in the circumstances of the case should not be considered, looked into and relied upon."

"The burden of proof in a case of clandestine removal is undoubtedly on the department. It cannot be denied that clandestine removal is often done in a surreptitious and secret manner and will never be an open transaction. At times, in such cases of clandestine removal, clinching documents will be available. Thus, if the department is able to prima facie establish a case of clandestine removal, violation of excise procedure, the burden shifts on the assessee to prove that he is innocent."

"The Managing Director was overall in-charge and was fully aware of various private accounts being maintained by his employees. He has not been able to give any cogent reason or any other evidence that he was not aware about these irregularities and deliberate clearances without following prescribed procedure or receipt of cash in respect of goods cleared clandestinely. Therefore, there was sufficient ground for imposition of penalty on him."

The Tribunal confirmed the demand of duty and penalties based on a holistic evaluation of private records, admissions by the Managing Director and key employees, corroborative statements of dealers and suppliers, and consistent application of legal principles regarding clandestine manufacture and removal and irregular credit availment. The burden of proof was met by the department on the preponderance of probabilities, and the appellant failed to rebut the allegations with cogent evidence. The order was modified only to the extent of excluding amounts previously dropped by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeals were dismissed accordingly.