Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 496 - DELHI HIGH COURTClandestine Removal - demand based on documents and information recovered from third party / ex-employee - cross examination - Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in rejecting and not taking into consideration computer printouts and holding them as inadmissible for failure to meet the conditions specified in Section 36B of the Central Excise Act? - Whether the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is contrary to facts and perverse? - Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in excluding statement of Janki Sharma and computer printout and in holding that there was no evidence to show clandestine removal? Held that:- It is evident that the case built up against the assessee is entirely based on the evidence procured from third party. The lynchpin of the Revenue’s case is the statement of Ms. Janki Sharma. Concededly, there was nothing recovered from the premises of assessee connecting it with her-either as an employee or as a consultant. It is not even Revenue’s claim that during the course of adjudication, it asked any query from the assessee for directing her to furnish the bank statement etc. to find out possible connection with respect to any payments made or other financial connection with Ms. Janki Sharma. The inference that the Revenue sought to draw a reference to “ATM”; the link it sought to make by the statement of Ms. Janki Sharma. There was no scrap of paper or evidence linking the assessee with any allegations levelled against it vis-à-vis excess production and clandestine removal. On the other hand, the CESTAT noticed that the assessee’s installed capacity was the production of five ton of copper ingots. Apparently, the assessee was able to function only half the month i.e. for about 15 days. The questions of law framed are answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee - Appeal dismissed.
|