The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the charges of clandestine removal unsustainable without corroboration of recovered documents.
The bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the charge of clandestine removal of goods on the basis of documents recovered during the course of investigation without corroboration are not relied upon documents.
The appellants/assessee are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of duty on account of clandestine removal of goods along with interest and penalty imposed on all the appellants.
Various statements were recorded during the course of investigation and on the basis of statements, documents seized during the course of investigation it was alleged that the appellant is engaged in the activity of clandestine removal and manufacturing of goods without payment of duty, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for the period 28.10.2010 to 06.07.2011 alleging clandestinely removal of goods, therefore, it is proposed to demand the duty along with interest and to impose penalty on the appellants.
The appellant contended that the demand is based on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. No investigation was conducted from the customers whose names have been found in the documents seized and the electronic documents are not admissible evidence clandestinely removal of goods without testifying the same under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The department contended that during the course of scrutiny and analysis of the documents recovered, the allegation of clandestine removal has been alleged the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act are admissible evidence and demand has been worked out on the basis of the record found during the course of investigation.
The tribunal has held that in the absence of any corroborative evidence to allege clandestine removal of goods, we find that charge of clandestine removal of goods is not sustainable against the appellant and the same is on the assumption and presumptions, therefore, the duty cannot be demanded on the basis of assumptions and presumptions.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhinav Agrawal Versus The Commissioner
Case No.: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50221 OF 2016
Date: 08.05.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Bipin Garg and J. Kainaat
Counsel For Respondent: V.K. Jain
Read More: BHEL Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Amount Towards Freight, Insurance Facilitation: CESTAT
