Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 845 - HC - Central ExciseWhether the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is admissible when they were found to be given voluntary. Moreover without any coercion or duress? - Held that: - when shortage is there the mere factum of shortage cannot justify an inference of clandestine removal of molasses but in order to attribute an act of clandestine removal upon Assessee either there must be a clear admission to this effect on the part of Assessee or its representative or it must be corroborated by further credible evidence that there is clandestine removal of molasses but on mere statement and that tooo of the kind of statement as we have noticed above, it cannot be said that there is an admission and no further corroboration is required. Question answered holding statement under Section 14 of Act 1944 is admissible but mere statement will not be sufficient to justify an inference of clandestine removal unless there is some corroborative material or statement contains clear admission of clandestine removal and that is not retracted subsequently or explained. However, if it is subsequently retracted or explanation is furnished then it has to be looked into the said admission and authority must have corroborative material and cannot base its finding under Section 14 of Act 1944. Whether retraction of earlier statement would not amount to detract its acceptability? - Held that: - in the present case as we have already held that there was no admission on the part of official concerned so as to hold that Assessee admitted clandestine removal, it cannot be said that there was any issue of acceptability of retracted statement or change to earlier statement. Question therefore, is also answered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. Whether the party correctly availed the Modvat credit of ₹ 57,60,900/-? - Whether the shortage of 115218 qtls. of molasses does not amount disposal molasses in a manner other than provided under Rule 57F of Central Excise Rule? - question answered against Revenue and in favour of Assessee since there is no sufficient evidence to show that there was a clandestine removal. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|