Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 191 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine Removal - Resins - misdeclaration of goods - substantial evidences or not - dummy firms - it is argued that entire case has been built on assumptions and presumptions - clearance of resins clandestinely in the guise of orthoxylene - evidentiary value of any statement made before the Central Excise officer under section 14 of Central Excise Act - Difference of Opinion - matter referred to third member - HELD THAT:- In view of the difference of opinion, the following questions arise for consideration by learned third Member:- 1. There is lack of sufficient evidence, as evidence being the statement of some of the persons given in the course of investigation is not reliable, as such persons have not stood by their earlier statement at the time of cross examination or not appeared for crossexamination, as held by learned Member (Technical) Or The statements of the persons recorded at the time of investigation is based or co-relatable with documentary evidence. Such documentary evidence having not been denied, the denial of clandestinely removed goods in cross-examination is of no avail to the appellant and such evidence is reliable for the purpose of adjudication as held by Member (Judicial). 2. The case of Revenue is not proved on the principle of preponderance of probability and accordingly the appeals are fit to be allowed as held by learned Member (Technical) Or In view of the documentary evidence brought on record in the course of investigation and duly supported by oral evidence of several persons and also supported by some of the key persons involved in the transaction, including in the course of cross-examination, the allegation of Revenue is established and accordingly the appeals are fit to be dismissed as held by Member (Judicial). The Registry is directed to put up the appeal record before the Hon’ble President for nomination of learned third Member to consider the aforementioned questions and difference of opinion, for his opinion.
|