Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Raipur vs M/S.Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron (P) Ltd on 3 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Appeal No.E/2312/2008-Ex
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.108/RPR.I/08 dated 21.8.2008 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Raipur)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.02.2014
For approval and signature:
Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhawa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, Raipur Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri B.B.Sharma,DR Present for the Respondent: Ms. Jaydeep Kaur, Advocate Coram: Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhawa, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO.50556/2014 PER: ARCHANA WADHAWA Being aggrieved with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing both sides, I find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 12.5.2006 and various checks and verifications were conducted by the officers. The statement of respondents authorised signatory was recorded who admitted such shortage.
3. On the above basis, the proceedings initiated against the respondent for confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty. The said proceedings were culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority, confirming the demand of Rs.5,02,556/- alongwith imposition of penalty of identical amount under section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. The respondent challenged the above confirmation on the ground that the entire stock was considered only on eye estimation basis. There was no physical verification actually done. It was contended that they were not having weighing scale in their factory and as such it was not possible to weigh the entire stock during the visit of the officer. The Revenue has not placed weighment slip to support clandestine clearance of goods without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted their stand by observing that there is no evidence produced on record by the Revenue indicating clandestine clearance of their final products. He took note of precedent decision of the Tribunal and observed that though confessional statement is no doubt a reliable piece of evidence but the same is required to be supported on tangible and corroborative evidence to establish charge of clandestine removal. He accordingly set aside demand. Hence the present appeal filed by the Revenue.
5. I have gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). After taking into account the various decisions of higher courts, he has rightly recorded that the charges of clandestine removal are required to be established by tangible and corroborative evidence and mere confessional statement of employee is not sufficient. I also find that it is admitted fact that the respondent was not having Weigh Bridge in their factory premises. As such their contention that the raw materials/finished goods accounting was done only on eye estimation basis is to be accepted inasmuch as there was no record that the goods were taken outside the factory for weightment purposes. There is no weightment slip produced by the Revenue. No buyers stands identified by Revenue to suggest clandestine removal of their final products. Further as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no evidence of excessive consumption of electricity, flow back of funds, extra use of labour etc. As such, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced in the open court) (ARCHANA WADHAWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mk 4