Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1118 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture - tobacco snuff - goods declared as “Mehandi” under fictitious name of buyers and sellers - it was alleged that the appellant is procuring the tobacco by using name of Roshan Lal Pawan Kumar without payment of duty which was used in the manufacture of snuff which was ultimately cleared without payment of duty - demand based on statement of various persons - retraction of statements - corroborative evidences or not - denial of cross examination - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As per the observations made in the impugned order, wherein it has been held that the allegation of receipt of raw material of tobacco in the manner – and denied cross examination of other persons clearly indicated the whole case is made out on the basis of statement of Sh. Roshan Lal and Sh. Pawan Kumar. Further, the cross examination of Sh. Pawan Kumar was concluded by the adjudicating authority holding that the examinationin- chief has been conducted in the presence of Shri Vikash Grover and no further cross examination was warranted as the position will not be going to change even if the appellant would not have conducted the cross examination of Sh. Pawan Kumar which clearly violats the principle of natural justice by denying the cross examination of Sh. Pawan Kumar. During cross examination of Shri Roshan Lal, Sh. Roshan Lal has retracted his own statement and the Revenue has relied on cross examination. In the statement, during investigation, Shri Roshan Lal stated that they were not procuring any goods and the goods were procured by the appellant whereas during the cross examination, he stated that they were engaged in the purchase and sale of raw tobacco. He also admitted that he is not the authorized person to give statement on behalf of M/s Roshan Lal Pawan Kumar whereas Shri Pawan Kumar in his statement stated that his father is correct - The entire case is based on the statement of Sh. Roshan Lal and Sh. Pawan Kumar against the appellant. As there are lot of contradiction in the statement and cross examination of Shri Roshan Lal, therefore, the statement of Shri Roshan Lal cannot be relied upon to allege that the appellant was receiving the goods through M/s Roshan Lal Pawan Kumar directly through suppliers. It is found that to manufacture snuff of huge quantity, other raw material/packing material also required but no such evidence of procurement of other raw material/packing material on record. Without evidence on record from where quantity of other raw material/packing material has been procured by the appellant used in manufacture of snuff which has been cleared without payment of duty, the charge of clandestine removal of snuff against the appellant is not sustainable. Thus, the entire proceeding was based on the statement of Shri Roshan Lal and which is without any cogent evidence on record. Therefore, the charge of clandestine removal of goods on this ground is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|