Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 773 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine Removal - inputs/raw materials as defined under Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - cross-examination of third party witnesses - respondents could not satisfactorily account for the transportation/receipt of such inputs/raw materials to their premises - violation of Section 9D of Central Excise Act - whether there is a vested right on the respondent to seek for cross examination of any of the third party witnesses? - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue has been well settled and is no longer res integra. The statement recorded from the Director of the respondent is admissible in evidence and the provisions of Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable. Further it has been held that a confession statement made before the Customs Officer though retracted within the period of 6 days is an admission and binding since the customs officers are not police officers, and also as could be seen from the language of Section 108 of the Customs Act. Further, under the scheme of the Act the right to cross examination is not absolute and denial of cross examination was held to be valid upon sound logic and if the same had been done such orders of adjudication have been upheld. Undoubtedly, the adjudicating authority is not conducting a criminal trial. The decree of proof required in such matters is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond the reasonable doubt. Therefore, while examining the correctness of the order of adjudication, the tribunal or the court should not apply the yardstick which a court would apply to a subordinate court which has arrived at a conclusion after a full-fledged trial. The facts of the case clearly shows that sufficient material was available with the adjudicating authority which came to the notice of the authority much later upon such operations being conducted and therefore the invocation of the extended period of limitation for initiating proceedings was fully justified. At no point of time there has been any retraction of the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Therefore, those statements could be relied upon and for the other reasons we have given above, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned tribunal. Appeal allowed.
|