By TIOL News Service

JAIPUR , SEPT 15, 2018: REVENUE is in appeal before the Rajasthan High Court.

The CESTAT while upholding the order of the Commissioner dropping the demand of Rs.30.85 lakhs and rejecting the Revenue appeal observed thus -

"6. Revenue has challenged the dropping of demand to the extent of Rs.30.85 lakhs. The demand of about Rs. 60 lakhs was proposed in the show cause notice on the basis of the quantification relying on 32 kachha parchis recovered during search proceedings. The assessee contended during the course of adjudication that out of 32 slips, 25 slips of various dates were of different despatches, which correlate and reconcile with the excise invoices issued to the respective parties. They have further claimed that all the clearances were duty paid and there was no clandestine clearance. The adjudicating authority has carefully gone through the said 25 slips alongwith the connected invoices and other documents submitted by the assessee and has given detailed discussions in para 36 of the impugned order. With reference to each kachha parchi and the relevant invoice, he has recorded that the quantity, size, truck No. name of consignee mentioned in the invoice are completely matching with the details so given in the recovered kachha parchi. Further, he has recorded that the subject invoices have been duly entered in RG-1 register as well as the ledger account. In the light of the above, he has concluded that the subject consignee were cleared on payment of Central Excise duty. We have gone through the records of the case as well as the findings of the adjudicating authority in this regard. We are of the view that since the adjudicating authority has given detailed findings that all the goods covered by 25 kachha parchis have been cleared on payment of duty, we find no reason to take a different view…

9. Clandestine clearance is a serious allegation and needs to be established on the basis of tangible evidence. It is well established fact that only on the basis of the inculpatory statement, the charges of clandestine clearance cannot be upheld. The inculpatory statements given by the General Manager and Director also do not specifically cover the seven parchis. In the absence of any corroborative evidence to indicate that the goods covered by seven parchis were cleared by the appellant, we are of the view that the charge of clandestine clearance and demand of duty cannot be sustained…"

The High Court noted that the valuation of seven parchis which were found would come to less than 50 lacs and in view of the Circular of the Department dated 11.7.2018 laying down new monetary limits for filing appeals before the High Court, the High Court was not inclined to interfere in the appeal.

Concluding that no substantial questions of law arises, the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-1908-HC-RAJ-CX)