- (1.) The revenue is in appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28 March 2014. The Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside an order of the Adjudicating Authority by which an order of confiscation was passed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 subject to a redemption fine and to a personal penalty that was imposed. The principal findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 20 November 2007 were two fold. Firstly, it was held that the stock which was found in the premises of the assessee was a few hundred tons and there was no actual measurement while determining as to whether there was an excess stock. The exercise appeared to have been carried out on the basis of a visual verification. The Commissioner (Appeals) held as follows: "...Obviously stock as found with the appellants was few hundreds tons which would not have been weighed in 6 hrs time. Hence it is not known and clear from panchnama as to what method was adopted to ascertain the excess of finished goods or raw material. It is also not known as to how the show cause notice issuing authority came to conclusion that physical stock verification was done on test check basis. Although, panchnama vaguely mentions the words "physical verification", no weighment sheet is prepared or the details of the size and specifications of the pieces of finished goods or ingots actually weighed as samples are recorded or concerned samples kept by revenue to prove their points. Even, I find the unit of quantity is not mentioned in Annexure-A of the panchnama dated 28-9-2004, which is such a vital piece of record as it is the only basic document which gives the details of excess quantity found at the time of verification on the spot... Moreover, within 6 hours of working inside the factory of the appellants, it could not have been possible for the raiding party to physically weigh approx 581 MT of stock and draw a conclusion that there is excess stock. Thus the verification carried out by officers suffered from uncertainties."
(2.) The second finding was that there was no corroborating material to indicate that the goods were meant for clandestine removal so as to attract the provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules. The Tribunal has confirmed both the findings.
(3.) The basic finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the quantum of approximately 581 MT had not been physically weighed and could not have been weighed within six hours. Hence, the conclusion that there was an excess stock, was incorrect since the verification itself suffered from infirmities. On the second aspect, it has been found that a mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof of an intent to clandestinely remove excisable goods. These are pure findings of fact on which no substantial question of law would arise. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.;