2019 (12) TMI 640 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - admissibility of statements of co-noticees - statements of noticees recorded u/ s 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not bear the signatures of the officials who recorded the statements despite the fact that the same noticees had confirmed their statements in their subsequent statements also recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The Tribunal should have undertaken a more thorough scrutiny of the statements of the parties and other witnesses recorded by the officers of the appellant. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority could have called upon the appellant to disclose as to which of the Officers has recorded the statements under Section 14 and to ascertain, as to whether or not, they were authorised to record such statements. The Tribunal should have also appreciated the reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority that the earlier statements though not bearing the signatures of the Officer who recorded the same, stood incorporated in the subsequent statement made by the same person when he affirmed the fact that his statements was so recorded. Matter remanded back to the Tribunal for re-appreciation of the evidence - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without the signatures of the officials who recorded them.
2. Validity of the charge of clandestine removal based on statements lacking officials' signatures but supported by other evidence.

Issue 1 - Admissibility of statements without officials' signatures:
The Tribunal relied on an order by the ACMM in a bail application, noting that certain statements lacked the signatures of the recording officers. The Adjudicating Authority addressed this issue, stating that statements not recorded by Gazetted Officers may not be admissible. However, it found that most statements were recorded before authorized Central Excise officers. The Authority rejected claims of coercion during statement recording, citing precedents. It also highlighted corroborative evidence like delivery challans and independent statements supporting the charges.

Issue 2 - Validity of clandestine removal charge:
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to determine if statements were recorded by authorized officers of sufficient rank. They contended that subsequent statements affirming earlier ones should render the initial statements admissible if made before authorized officers. The respondent countered that even if signed, there was no proof of authorization by officers of the required rank. The Court found the Tribunal should have scrutinized the statements more thoroughly, verifying the rank of the recording officers. It emphasized that earlier statements, even without signatures, could be admissible if affirmed later before authorized officers.

Court's Decision:
The Court allowed the appeal, directing a remand to the Tribunal for a reevaluation of the evidence regarding the admissibility of statements. The Tribunal was instructed to consider the respondent's plea regarding the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and review the legal arguments presented by both parties. The parties were scheduled to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings.