P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Ambica Iron & Steel Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Rourkela - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (21 Dec 2021)

Charge of clandestine clearance is a serious charge and the onus to prove the same is on the Revenue by adducing concrete and cogent evidence

MANU/CK/0059/2021

Excise

The instant Appeal has been filed by the assessee (Appellant) against the Order-in-Original passed by the learned Commissioner, confirming the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,70,51,370 along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

The clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods is to be proved by tangible, direct, affirmative and incontrovertible evidences relating to (i) Receipt of raw material inside the factory premises, and non-accounted thereof in the statutory records; (ii) Utilization of such raw material for clandestine manufacture of finished goods; (iii) Manufacture of finished goods with reference to installed capacity, consumption of electricity, labour employed and payment made to them, packing material used, records of security officers, discrepancy in the stock of raw materials and final products; (iv) Clandestine removal of goods with reference to entry of vehicle/truck in the factory premises, loading of goods therein, security gate records, transporters' documents, such as L.R.s, statements of lorry drivers, entries at different check posts, forms of the Commercial Tax Department and the receipt by the consignees; (v) Amount received from the consignees, statement of the consignees, receipts of sale proceeds by the consignor and its disposal. Whereas, in the instant case, no such clinching or corroborative evidences to the above effect have been brought on record.

In the instant case, the entire case of the Revenue is based on the Kaccha Chithas seized from the residence of the Director. The manner in which the said Kaccha Chithas is seized has been strongly agitated by the Appellant. The said Kaccha Chithas/documents should have been seized in the presence of the Director. There is considerable force in the contention of the Appellant that the Kacha Chithas relied upon by the Revenue cannot be a basis to uphold the serious charge of clandestine clearance. It is settled legal position that, charge of clandestine clearance is a serious charge and the onus to prove the same is on the Revenue by adducing concrete and cogent evidence. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the issue of fact i.e. in the present case "the charge of clandestine clearance" cannot be leveled against the assessee.

In the entire proceedings, no evidence, much less corroborative evidence, has been adduced to show that input goods have been procured to manufacture goods for clandestine clearance. No efforts have been made by the investigating agencies to establish the existence of any unaccounted manufacturing activity in the form of unaccounted raw material, shortage of stock, shortage of raw material/finished goods, excess consumption of electricity, unaccounted labour payments, interrogation of buyers/transporters or any incriminating record/document to suggest any flow back of cash etc..

The Revenue authorities in present case have failed to discharge the burden of proving the serious charge of clandestine clearance or undervaluation with cogent and clinching evidence. It has been consistently held that, no demand of clandestine manufacture and clearance can be confirmed purely on assumptions and presumptions and the same is required to be proved by the Revenue by direct, affirmative and incontrovertible evidence.

It is a well settled position of law that, serious allegation cannot be made merely on assumptions and presumptions and in the absence of detailed supporting evidence, the charge of clandestine removal cannot be upheld. The impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. The Appeal is allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   CONFIRMATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved