Order Date: 16 November 2022

Facts:

• The Appellant, M/s. Maa Foundry Private Limited, is engaged in the manufacture of C.I. Ingot Moulds, Pig Iron and C.I. Scrap etc. are used as raw materials.
• It was alleged that the Appellant had purportedly clandestinely produced and removed 1283 MT, 660.230 MT and 20.770 MT aggregating to 1964.970 MT of C.I. Moulds without payment of duty of Rs.44,24,025/-.
• Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 22-01-2016 confirmed the duty demand of Rs.38,06,364/- for purported clandestine removal of 1746.200 MT of C.I. Moulds and further imposed penalty of Rs.38,06,364/- under Section 11AC of the Act.
• The Appellant being aggrieved, has filed appeal before this Tribunal.

Issue:

• Whether the shortage of 20.770 MT of C.I. Mould purportedly detected in physical actual weighing of the entire stock is proper ?

Order:

• The tribunal find that in the course of the search operation, no parallel invoices or challans were found. All the invoice books found in the search operation were found to be unused.
• Tribunal observed that in the instant case the entire case is based on the private records seized from the residence of the employee Shri Anirudha Sutar and office of the Appellant. There is considerable force in the contention of the Appellant that the private records 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 in the instant case i.e. “the charge of clandestine clearance” cannot be labeled against the assessee. The confirmation of demand of Rs.59,901/- on the basis of purported shortage of 20.770 MT of C.I. Mould purportedly detected in physical actual weighing of the entire stock is not proper.
• The tribunal held that the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant made in the Show Cause Notice, is merely on assumption and presumption, without sufficient material evidence corroborating the said allegations.
• The Appeals, filed by the Appellants are allowed with consequential relief, as per law.