Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 926 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - natural justice - the authorities failed to offer all the witnesses for cross examination by the appellants - Held that: - ld. Commissioner could not rely on the statements of these witnesses without providing them for cross-examination - reliance was placed in the decision of the case of G. Tech Industries vs. UOI [2016 (6) TMI 957 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was pointed out that Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clearly sets out the sequence of evidence, in which evidence-in-chief has to precede cross-examination, and cross-examination has to precede re-examination. The computer printouts have been taken out as RUD-1 and 2 are in the form of prints taken out from the pen-drive as well as from the hard-disk recovered, the conditions under Section 36B(2) have not been satisfied for the admissibility of evidence in the form of computer printouts, in RUD-1 and 2. It is true that the evidence which is required to be produced in quasi judicial proceedings should be such that the charges get established on the basis of preponderance of probability. The standard of evidences need not be as high as in criminal proceedings, where the charges are required to be established beyond reasonable doubts - in the present case the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance has not been substantiated by any tangible evidences, The Revenue has failed to produce any corroborative evidence in the form of purchase of raw materials, clearance of finished products or even the capacity to manufacture such a huge quantity of finished products alleged to have been cleared. The evidence, at best, raises suspicion in the minds but is not sufficient to prove the charges of clandestine removal. The evidences produced by the Revenue for sustaining the duty demand has not been corroborated by detailed investigation - The allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance cannot be sustained on the basis of such flimsy evidences - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|