Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 517 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - shortage found in the stock of finished goods - admissibility of statements - opportunity of cross-examination denied - principles of natural justice - Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in very clear terms has held in Andaman Timber Industries, [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT], that denial of cross-examiantion of the witness whose statements were made the basis of the adjudication order is a serious flaw which makes the order a nullity, as it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice - the provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act have not been followed in the present matter. In view of this, the statements are not admissible in evidence. The learned Commissioner ought to have considered the retractions made by Authorized Signatory and the supervisor of the Company, even if these were made belatedly - It is also settled law that if the statements are retracted, the same should be corroborated by other material particulars - In the present matter, the Revenue has not brought on record any independent evidence to support the retracted statements. Consequently no reliance can be placed on such statements to support the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant Company. It is trite law that third party document alone cannot be relied upon as admissible piece of evidence. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts and this Tribunal that clandestine manufacture and clearances cannot be inferred from a few documents and statements unless the allegations are corroborated and established on evidences relatable to or linked with actual manufacturing operation - In the present matter no such evidence is brought on record. Shortage found in the stock of finished goods - Held that:- There is nothing on record to show that actually the stock of laminated sheets were physically checked by the officers. The Revenue has not controverted the contention of the Appellant that in the given time of 9-10 hours, the officers were present in the factory premises, it was not feasible to verify the stock of laminated sheets of different sizes physically - the Revenue has not succeeded in establishing that there was any shortage of finished goods in the factory of the appellant. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|