2003 (7) TMI 89 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act
2. Acceptance of plea without cross-examination of truck driver's statement
3. Misdeclaration in bills of entries and clandestine removal of goods
4. Use of imported goods for manufacturing vs. evidence of goods not reaching factory
5. Requirement for goods to reach factory premises
6. Customs clearance debarring Central Excise Deptt. from raising issues
7. Applicability of Bhillai Conductor case law

Admissibility of statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act:
The petitioner sought direction for the Tribunal to submit questions of law, including the admissibility of a statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act as evidence. The petitioner questioned the non-retraction of the statement and its validity in judicial proceedings.

Acceptance of plea without cross-examination of truck driver's statement:
Another issue raised was the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's plea without allowing cross-examination of the truck driver's statement. The petitioner argued that the assessee was not given the opportunity for cross-examination despite multiple notices issued.

Misdeclaration in bills of entries and clandestine removal of goods:
The Tribunal's decision regarding misdeclaration in bills of entries and the alleged clandestine removal of goods from the factory was also challenged. The petitioner contested the Tribunal's findings and the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's case.

Use of imported goods for manufacturing vs. evidence of goods not reaching factory:
A key issue involved the discrepancy between the Tribunal's ruling on the use of imported goods for manufacturing and the evidence suggesting that the goods never reached the factory premises. The petitioner highlighted specific evidence contradicting the Tribunal's decision.

Requirement for goods to reach factory premises:
The question of whether the goods must reach the factory premises was raised, with the petitioner arguing against the Tribunal's decision based on the location where the goods were offloaded. The petitioner contested the Tribunal's interpretation of the situation.

Customs clearance debarring Central Excise Deptt. from raising issues:
The Tribunal's ruling on customs clearance and its impact on the Central Excise Department's ability to address issues related to evasion of payment was also challenged. The petitioner questioned the Tribunal's decision and its implications on enforcement actions.

Applicability of Bhillai Conductor case law:
Lastly, the petitioner sought clarification on the applicability of the Bhillai Conductor case law to the present circumstances. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the relevance of the case law in the context of the current case.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the petition, directing the Tribunal to refer the questions of law raised by the petitioner for further consideration and submission of a statement of case along with the relevant records.