Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 713 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Jumbo Rolls - allegation in this show cause notice is that M/s SPPL cleared jumbo rolls of 3000m length and misdeclared them as of 1000m length and thereby under paid Central Excise duty - sufficient evidence of the alleged clandestine removal present or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The documents of the transporter in this particular factual matrix is quite relevant because the goods have to be carried for a very long distance and the liability of the transporter for transporting the goods as well as the payment for transportation requires him to record the actual quantity of goods being transported. It does not matter whether the seller or the buyer pays for transportation. Nobody will pay for 3x quantity of goods when only x quantity of goods is transported. Further, in case of an accident or damage or theft the liability of the transporter will also be accordingly. No transporter will take upon him the liability of 3x quantity of goods when he is actually carrying x quantity of goods. In this case, the transporter not only issued GCNs but has also maintained computerised record of the goods transported presumably because he is dealing with two large companies. Both the GCNs and the statements by the transporter show the actual quantity of goods transported by weight. There is sufficient evidence of clandestine removal by SPPL. It is impossible to have every single document to show with mathematical precision the clandestine removal starting from raw material to their production and clearance because by its very nature, clandestine removal is done without recording the figures. If all figures were recorded faithfully in the documents there will not be any clandestine removal. Therefore, in each and every case of alleged clandestine removal the facts and circumstances must be evaluated to come to a conclusion if there is sufficient evidence of clandestine removal or otherwise. It is true that the officers have searched the premises of SPPL almost one year after the initial detection in the premises of M/s VH. If the search was conducted prior to this date they possibly would have found more evidence. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Section 11A of Central Excise Act provides for demand to be raised within five years from the relevant date in case of suppression of facts which has been the present case - there are no basis for the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the demand must be raised within one year from the date on which the department comes to know of the alleged clandestine removal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|