1992 (6) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against orders passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissing appellant's appeal against adjudicating authority's decision on duty payment for seized urea bags.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Adjudication Order:
The appeal was filed against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in response to the orders passed by the adjudicating authority. The authority had held the appellants accountable for duty payment on 29 bags of urea seized for being removed from the factory without duty payment.

2. Facts of the Case:
On a specific date, Central Excise officers checked the non-duty paid stock-room of a company and found urea bags. The company claimed the urea was part of a purchase from a non-existent firm. The authorities seized the urea for non-payment of duty and issued a show cause notice to the appellant.

3. Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant contended that there was no evidence to prove the seized urea was industrial grade or that it was cleared without duty payment. The burden of proof, according to the appellant, lay with the department. The department argued that the urea, being industrial grade, should have been cleared with duty payment.

4. Analysis of Evidence:
The Tribunal observed that the mere presence of urea in bags marked with a specific company's name did not conclusively prove duty evasion. The department failed to provide a test report confirming the industrial grade of the seized urea. The burden was on the department to prove duty evasion, which was not substantiated.

5. Factory Production and Duty Payment:
There was no evidence to link the seized urea to the appellant's factory or to establish that it was industrial grade urea removed without duty payment. The authorities' conclusions were based on presumptions and conjectures, lacking concrete proof.

6. Precedent and Decision:
The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision that supported their argument. Following the lack of concrete evidence and relying on the precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the department failed to prove duty evasion regarding the seized urea, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence and burden of proof in such cases. The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence and the reliance on a previous Tribunal ruling supporting the appellant's position.