Page 100 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

322 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Krishnamohan Menon and Rahul Tamaskar,
Advocates, for the Appellant.
Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.]. - The appeal is at the in-
stance of the Assessee-Company. The grievance is that the Adjudicating Authori-
ty, the Appellate Authority and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal), have not properly assessed the facts and fig-
ures and the relevant provisions of law in the light of the relevant judicial prece-
dents with regard to the basic challenge raised against fixing the duty, penalty
and interest.
2. At the outset itself, it is to be noted that the appeal, though filed in
the year 2015, was pending before this Court without admission. In fact, the Ap-
pellant/Assessee had suggested some question of law for consideration in the
appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as given below :
“(A) Whether the appellant had manufactured and cleared 1580.950 MT
of sponge iron without payment of excise duty in clandestine man-
ner?
(B) Whether the appellant can be held liable under the relevant provi-
sions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for clandestinely removing the
goods without payment of excise duty, just on the basis of circum-
stantial evidence?
(C) Whether in absence of any corroborative evidence the liability along
with penalty can be imposed upon the appellant for clandestinely
removing the goods without the payment of excise duty?”
3. Later, on observing that it might not constitute substantial questions
of law, permission was sought for to get it amended which prayer was granted.
Pursuant to this, the following questions have been suggested as involving sub-
stantial questions of law :
“(A) Whether Tribunal is correct in confirming demand of excise duty on
clandestine removal of goods without corroborative evidence relat-
ing to such clearances without following the law laid down in this
regard that charge of clandestine removal has to be evidenced based
on multiple corroborative evidences and not based on indicative ev-
idence?
(B) Whether comparison of internal documents with invoices is evi-
dence enough to establish charge of clandestine removal?
(C) Whether Tribunal is correct in confirming the demand only by plac-
ing reliance on statement of director of Appellant and transporters
to decide the appeal?
(D) Whether adjudicating authorities acted in accordance with Section
9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by admitting unexamined state-
ments of directors and transporters as evidence?
(E) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, can the findings
rendered by Tribunal w.r.t. clandestine removal of goods without
corroborative evidence be treated as perverse warranting interfer-
ence of this Hon’ble Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 on any ground referable as sustainable question of law?”
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  100