1997 (11) TMI 345 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Alleged clandestine removal of sandalwood oil without payment of duty based on letters, Contradictory statements of individuals involved, Reliability of private records as evidence, Comparison with previous case laws for evidentiary value.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the alleged clandestine removal of sandalwood oil without payment of duty by the Appellant, who was working as a job worker for a company. The dispute pertains to a specific period, and the evidence relied upon by the Excise officers includes letters written by an employee of the company supplying the sandalwood to the Appellant. The letters indicated discrepancies in the quantities of sandalwood oil shown in comparison to the Appellant's excise records.

During the investigation, statements were taken from the employee and the proprietor of the supplying company. The employee stated his role in supervising the production and providing information to the proprietor, while the proprietor acknowledged sending sandalwood to multiple job workers. The Appellant denied any clandestine removal and sought to cross-examine the individuals and the investigator.

The adjudicating authority concluded that the sandalwood oil mentioned in the letters was indeed manufactured by the Appellant and clandestinely removed without duty payment. The Appellant argued against this finding, citing previous Tribunal decisions and questioning the reliance on private letters as evidence. The Tribunal examined the precedents cited by the Appellant, emphasizing that the weight of evidence depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the demand for duty payment on the additional quantity of sandalwood oil and reduced the penalty imposed on the Appellant. The decision was based on the consistency between the data in the letters and the Appellant's excise records, indicating that the oil was indeed produced by the Appellant. The absence of a motive for the employee to inflate production figures further supported the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the Respondent, confirming the duty demand against the Appellant for clandestine removal of sandalwood oil. The penalty amount was reduced, and the appeal was disposed of based on the evidence presented and the specific circumstances of the case.