Raghuveer Rolling Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Allahabad)
CESTAT Allahabad held that clandestine removal is a serious charge and requires to be substantiated by evidence. Here, as department has not adduced any additional evidence to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal not sustained.
Facts-
M/s Raghuveer Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Iron Flats, spring Leaves and Agriculture implements. Officers of Central Excise visited the premises of the appellants and conducted investigations. A show cause notice dated 28.02.2015, demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.11, 11,790, invoking proviso to Section 11A, along with interest and proposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Order-in-Original confirmed the duty demanded and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC ibid. On the appeal filed by the appellant learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 16-05-2018 upheld the order of the lower authority and therefore, the appellants preferred the instant appeal.
Conclusion-
I find that it has been held in a catena of judgments that a serious charge like clandestine removal cannot be established without tangible evidence or procurement of raw material, deployment of labour, consumption of electricity, manufacture of excisable goods, sale of excisable goods, transportation of excisable goods and receipt of consideration etc.
I also find that there are some entries related to transportation allegedly by Tractor. Learned authorized representative argues that only a tractor has registration and not the trolley and therefore, reference to tractor should be read as reference to tractor with trolley. However, I find that this is only an assumption as the entries in the diary distinctly mention tractor and tractor trolley separately. The person writing the diary was not identified and evidence was not established as to the truthfulness of contents. This becomes significance due to the lack of any other corroborative evidence.
Held that clandestine removal is a serious charge and requires to be substantiated by evidence encompassing various activities in the chain of events. I find that the department has not adduced any additional evidence, even on a sample basis to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal as per above. In the absence of evidence, the allegations raised by the department are not substantiated. For this reason, impugned order cannot be sustained.
