2011 (9) TMI 415 - AT - Central Excise

Production capacity enhancing on ground of enhancement of electricity capacity Statement taken under coercion - failure to furnish Panchnama failure to provide copies of necessary evidence for allegations made in the show cause notice - Held that There is nothing on record to show that high power connection supported by evidence was made on a particular date and that resulted in higher amount of production. Moreover Tribunal in the case of R.A. Castings held that electricity consumption is not the criteria to determine output level. Further no cogent evidence is on record to show either suppression of purchase of input or clandestine removal of goods in full proof manner known to law . It is also held that non-providing of copy of Panchnama made the intervention unlawful and when evidence was recorded in the manner not acceptable to law in absence of cogent evidence to the contrary that cannot inculpate the appellants. Appeals of assessee are allowed with consequential relief.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegations of arbitrary adjudication and coercion in recording statements
2. Failure to provide copies of necessary evidence to the appellant
3. Allegations of higher production and capacity enhancement
4. Validity of retraction statement and lack of evidence supporting allegations
5. Legal sanctity of evidence and lack of corroborative evidence
6. Precedent regarding electricity consumption in determining output level

Issue 1: Allegations of arbitrary adjudication and coercion in recording statements
The appellant contended that the investigating team made arbitrary adjudications regarding production capacity without proper evidence. They argued that statements were recorded under coercion and without following due process of law. The appellant highlighted instances where statements were allegedly written by someone else and signed by the appellant, undermining the evidentiary value of such statements. The appellant also raised concerns about the lack of legal sanctity attached to the statements due to the authorities' failure to provide copies of necessary documents, despite repeated requests.

Issue 2: Failure to provide copies of necessary evidence to the appellant
The appellant emphasized the failure of the respondents to provide copies of essential evidence when allegations were made in the show cause notice. Despite requests for copies of documents like panchnama, the authorities did not comply. This lack of access to crucial evidence was argued to be a violation of the principles of natural justice, impacting the fairness of the adjudication process.

Issue 3: Allegations of higher production and capacity enhancement
The respondent argued that there was an enhancement in electricity capacity, leading to higher production levels. However, the tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim. The tribunal noted the absence of evidence indicating an increase in production due to the alleged capacity enhancement, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence to establish such claims.

Issue 4: Validity of retraction statement and lack of evidence supporting allegations
The appellant's retraction statement raised serious allegations against the revenue department regarding the unfair recording of statements. The tribunal highlighted discrepancies in how the statements were recorded and the lack of proper explanations for such discrepancies. The tribunal emphasized the need for statements to be recorded in a legally acceptable manner and supported by cogent evidence, which was found lacking in this case.

Issue 5: Legal sanctity of evidence and lack of corroborative evidence
The tribunal analyzed the evidence presented and found it lacking in legal sanctity. The lack of corroborative evidence to support the allegations made in the show cause notice raised doubts about the validity of the adjudication process. The tribunal emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and providing substantial evidence to substantiate allegations.

Issue 6: Precedent regarding electricity consumption in determining output level
The tribunal referred to a precedent where it was established that electricity consumption alone is not sufficient to determine output levels. The tribunal highlighted a case where electricity consumption was not considered a reliable criterion for assessing production levels. This precedent was cited to support the tribunal's decision in the current case, emphasizing the need for cogent evidence beyond just electricity consumption data.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed both appeals, citing the lack of substantial evidence, arbitrary adjudication, and failure to follow due process as reasons for the decision. The judgment underscored the importance of legal sanctity in evidence, the need for corroborative evidence, and adherence to principles of natural justice in adjudication processes.