Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 532 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine removal - corroborative evidences - Summoning of persons - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in law rejecting the evidences recorded/collected in an inquiry conducted under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is deemed to be “judicial proceedings” under Sub-Section (3) of Section 14 ibid, within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 128 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? - Held that: - The Tribunal came to the conclusion that most of the witnesses had retracted their statements on the basis that their statements were obtained under duress and coercion. None of these statements were voluntary and the Commissioner had relied upon different versions of their original statements. The Tribunal also observed that after perusing the documentary evidence relied upon by the Commissioner that the transport receipt, goods challans and other documents did not bear acknowledgments of any of the respondents for having received the consignment of tobacco. In the facts of the case, there was no corroborative documentary evidence to substantiate such statements and in the absence of these link documents it was not proper to conclude that there was clandestine clearance of goods. The settled legal position for establishing clandestine clearances is that there had to be a strong body of evidence which the Tribunal found was lacking in the present case. The Tribunal found that the evidence of drivers would have been useful in proving a fact of supply of raw tobacco at a particular destination but the revenue had not recorded the statements of any of the drivers of transporters of raw tobacco. On the date of interception of 90 cartons of raw tobacco, immediate verification carried out of the stock in the respondent’s factory did not reveal any shortage or excess and there was no evidence of unaccounted production or clearance - the Tribunal has examined the evidence threadbare and has correctly come to the conclusion that the order of the confiscation of 90 cartons of Jarda and the demand made of Central Excise duty upon the main respondent and imposition of penalty and interest cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|