Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hissar Pipes Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Rohtak on 17 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III Excise Appeal No. 3834/2010-EX[SM] [Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 338/BK/RTK/2010 dated 20.08.2010 passed by CCE, Rohtak] For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member 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 M/s Hissar Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE, Rohtak Respondent
Appearance:
Shri O.P.Bathla, Consultant for the Appellants Shri M.S. Negi, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 26.03.2014 Date of Decision: 17.04.2014 FO ORDER NO. 51618/2014_ Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of MS Pipes/G.I. Pipes falling under Chapter Heading 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the Preventive Officers on 08.12.2007, who conducted physical stock taking of the finished goods as well as Cenvatable raw materials. As a result, shortages were detected in two types of raw materials i.e. GI and Black Pipes involving duty of Rs. 4,10,354/-. Statement of Shri Ramesh Singal, Director was recorded wherein he deposed that the same have been cleared by them without issuing any invoices. They also debited the Central Excise duty from their RG-23A Part-II.
2. Based upon the above, proceedings were initiated against them, which culminated into an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, confirming the demands alongwith confirmation of interest and imposition of identical penalties. In addition penalty of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed upon the Director. The said order was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal.
3. I find that the entire case of the Revenue is based only on the shortages detected at the time of visit of the officers as also statement of the Director. Whether the charges of clandestine removal can be upheld on the shortages so detected stand considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Raj Ratan Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur 2013 (289) ELT 482 (Tri.-Del.) as also in the case of CCE, Meerut-I Vs. Sivertone Papers Ltd. 2013 (287) ELT 478 (Tri.-Del). It stand held that in the absence of concrete evidence leading towards clandestine activities, the said charges cannot be upheld against the assessee. It is also seen that the appellant disputed the factum of actual weighment and submitted that the same has been made on the basis of eye estimation. Tribunal in the above referred decision of Silvertone Papers Ltd. has observed that in absence of weighment slips and inventories the shortages detected by the officers cannot be said to be genuine.
4. As regards the statement of the Director, it is seen that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, CCE, Kanpur Vs. Manoj Kumar Pani 2010 (260) ELT 92 (Tri. Del.) has observed that It is common sense that no one shall confess that goods were cleared without issuing invoices with intent to avoid payment of tax to cause him prejudice.. As such the Revenues sole reliance on the statement of Director, without their being any other evidence to reflect upon clandestine activities especially when the factum of actual weighment is also in doubt, cannot be appreciated.
5. Further, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tejwal Dyestuff Industries Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2007 (216) ELT 310 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has observed that the Revenue Officers, after recording of confessional statement believes that the same has put an end to the investigations and does not carry the matter for further investigation. Though the confessionals statement may be the starting point of investigations but in view of the other evidence available on record and in the absence of the other evidence indicating, clandestine removal, the same cannot be made the sole basis for deciding against the assessee. To the same effect is the decision of the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhingra Metal Works, 2010-TIOL-693-HC-DEL-IT laying down that though an admission is extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive. In view of the above, I find no merits in the impugned order. The same are accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounce in the open Court on..) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
3