Anil G. Shakkarwar ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rajesh Chhibber for appellant and Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, A.R. for Revenue, we find that the appellant's factory, who is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Profiles (hollow) of various sizes and specifications, was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 14.05.2015, who conducted various checks and verifications. It was found that Daily Stock Register (RG-1) was written only up to 30.04.2015. On being questioned, Shri Jagdish Prasad, Authorised Signatory, informed the officers that they were maintaining the Stock Position of the finished goods on the Computer installed in their factory on routine basis, and entries in RG-1 Registered were made in 10-15 days period. They also produced a printout of Stock position of the finished goods for the intervening period from 01.05.2015 to 14.05.2015 depicting the day-wise production and clearances of the finished goods.
Physical stock taking of the finished goods was also undertaken by the visiting officers and it was found that there was shortage of Aluminium Profiles (other than hollow) as also of Aluminium Profiles (hollow) involving duty of Rs. 5,01,177/- and of Rs. 58,911/-.
During further search of the factory alleged incriminate documents including one note pad was also recovered. Scrutiny of the same lead the officers to believe that the appellant have cleared their final products without payment of duty to the extent of Rs. 64,64,608/- (sixty four lakhs sixty four thousand six hundred and eight rupees). Statement of Shri Jagdish Prasad, Authorised Signatory was recorded wherein he deposed that entries in the note book appears to have been made by the packing and dispatch staff of his company and related to the details of material packed along with details of dispatch of the material and the figures reflected against the entries T.B.L. denotes the total balance quantity available on a particular date after dispatch and the figures reflected against the entries T. Dispatch denotes the total dispatch quantity up to the date of particular month. Further, on being confronted with certain loose papers resumed by the officers, he deposed that the entries therein were entries by the dispatch staff of his company. On further pointing out to certain print out of loose papers, he submitted that some quantity might have been cleared by them without invoices and without payment of Central Excise duty.
2. On the above basis proceedings were initiated against the appellant proposing confirmation of demand of duty alleging clandestine removal, which in turn was based upon entries made in the note book as also on rough papers. The notice also proposed confirmation of duty to the extent of Rs. 5,60,088.00/- (five lakh sixty thousand and eighty eight) in respect of shortages detected in the stock by the visiting officers. Proposal to impose penalties were also made.
3. The said show cause notice was taken up for adjudication by the Additional Commissioner. The Adjudicating Authority observed that apart from the entries made in the note books and rough papers there is no other evidence of clandestine removal. As regards statement of Shri Jagdish Prasad, he observed that it was clearly mentioned by him that the said note pad was not being maintained by him and the same appeared to be maintained by dispatch staff. The Revenue has not made any further enquiry from the dispatch staff. No investigation was conducted from the two Directors of the Company who were looking after day to day work of the Company and were responsible for the functioning. As such by referring to various decisions he observed that the non-confessional statement of Shri Jagdish Prasad cannot be made the sole basis for upholding the allegations of clandestine removal unless such allegations are proved by the Revenue with corroborative, independent, cogent and concrete evidences. Accordingly, he vaca........