Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 782 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine Removal - excess unaccounted quantity of raw-material - Lead Ingots - Kacha Parchi i.e. rough slips - entire case is made out on the basis of voluntary statement of the appellant/ assessee and entries made in note pads and pocket diaries - Held that:- These statements of the transporters have not confirmed the transportation of alleged goods. In their statements, the transporters have deposed that they have not maintained any record regarding the goods transported by them and nothing more. These statements in itself do not indicate that the appellant/assessee is engaged in clandestine removal of goods. It has been held in the various decisions that clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods is a very serious charge and required to established by the Revenue. In the case of M/s Continental Cement Company, [2014 (9) TMI 243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], Hon’ble High Court has laid down that there must be clinching evidence for establishing the clandestine clearance and the same cannot be based on assumption and presumption only. No investigations have been conducted by the Department, in the light of the observations made by Hon’ble High Court, to make a fool proof case for the clandestine removal of the goods as alleged in the two Show Cause Notices. Seizure of goods - Held that:- Only the excess stock has been found in the factory. But the same was not removed and was lying there itself. This in itself will lead into inference that such and intention to remove the goods in a clandestine manner - there could not be any scope of clearance of seized goods without payment of duty. Second SCN - Held that:- The same has been issued by and made answerable to Principal Commissioner of Indore and, however, the adjudication was done by the Additional Commissioner without any indication that the Adjudicating Authority has changed during the course of adjudication proceedings. This in itself would have been reason to drop the demand raised by the Show Cause Notice. However, the appellant has not raised this plea in the appeal, and therefore, the same is ignored. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|