TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -99, by making declaration under Rule 174 of the Rules that the work of dyeing and bleaching was not being carried out by him with the aid of power and steam. However, on surprise checking by the Central Excise Officers, of his factory on 21-5-1999, it was revealed that, he was carrying out these processes with the power aided jiggers. However, no finished processed fabric was found lying in his factory. But he in his own statement recorded at the spot on 21-5-99 and thereafter on 14-9-99 admitted that the processes of dyeing, scouring, bleaching and calendering, etc., of cotton fabrics, were being carried out by him with the power aided machines, since 1988. He also got enhanced/increased his earlier electricity load of 90 H.P. to 101 KVA. The declaration made by him on 12-4-99 under Rule 174 of the Rules, was found to be incorrect. The list of the machines and electric motors installed in the factory premises, by him, was also prepared by the Officers on 21-5-99. The electricity bills for the period October, 1995 to March, 1999 were also procured from KESA, Kanpur which were in his name. On completion of investigation, a show cause notice was served on the firm and its proprieto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aching with the aid of power or steam. The benefit of this notification had been denied to the appellants firm and its proprietor, on the ground that they were conducting bleaching and dyeing of the grey fabrics with the aid of power during the period from April, 1995 to May, 1999. To substantiate this ground, reliance had been mainly placed by the adjudicating authority on these facts and circumstances, (i) presence of power operated jiggers in their factory on 21-5-99, the date of visit of the Central Excise Officers, (ii) two confessional statements of Shri Shiv Ratan Das Kanodia, proprietor of firm, (iii) non-entry in the inward register of their factory regarding the receipt of the power operated jiggers on 26-4-99, (iv) the increase in the electricity load from 91 H.P. to 101 KVA, (v) draft ground plan showing the location of the power operated jiggers in the factory, and (vi) statement of one of the 11 suppliers of grey fabrics, namely, Shri Narendra Singh Yadav, stating that the fabrics received from the appellants were processed with the and of power. 6. The Counsel has contended that, the above referred circumstances individually, as well as collectively, could not be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion from the independent sources before relying upon the same, as ruled by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in Manindra Chandra Dey v. CEGAT, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 as well as in Jitendra Kumar Ghishulal Jain, 1998 (103) E.L.T. 591. Similarly in State of Maharashtra v. P.K. Pathak, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1628 it has been also observed that, he retracted confession must be corroborated in material particulars. Therefore, the retracted confessional statements of Shri Shiv Ratan Das Kanodia recorded on two different dates referred to above, could not be accepted as substantial piece of evidence for holding that he installed the power operated jiggers for bleaching and dyeing in the year 1988 without seeking corroboration from any other independent oral or documentary evidence. No employee of the appellants admitted the installation of power operated jiggers and their operation since 1988 or from April, 1995 the date from which the duty had been demanded. The alleged statement of Shri Shiv Ratan Das Kanodia that he was charging the dyeing charges between Rs. 2 to Rs. 9 per meter from the parties for whom he did the job work and that for scouring and bleaching, he had been charging Rs. 10 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jiggers by the appellants for dyeing and bleaching purposes since April, 1995 could not be attached any credence. At the time of visit of the Officers, no fabric after going through the processes of dyeing and bleaching on the jiggers, was found lying there. The argument of the learned SDR that the fabrics must be in the process in the jiggers at that time could not be accepted for want of evidence to corroborate the same. Even in the show cause notice, it had not been so alleged. 12. Few lapses/deficiencies in the plea of the appellants such as regarding purchase of power operated jiggers only on 26-4-99 from M/s. Roshan Trading Co., non-entry in the inward register showing the receipt of the jiggers on that date in the factory and non-appearance of the proprietor, Shri Sarfraj Ahmed of M/s. Roshan Trading Co. who was mainly scrap trader, to accept the correctness of bill dated 26-4-99 issued by him to the appellants regarding the sale of old power operated jiggers, could not be legally made basis for raising presumption for the backward period to hold that the power operated jiggers were installed and commissioned by the appellants, 5 years back. No such presumption for the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants of having carried out dyeing and bleaching of grey fabrics with power operated jiggers and not hand operated jiggers since April, 1995 or earlier to that. The retracted statement of Shri Shiv Ratan Das Kanodia, proprietor of the appellants firm about the working of power operated jiggers as observed above, did not carry any legal value in the eyes of law for want of corroboration from any other oral or documentary evidence. 14. In Punjab Fibres Limited v. CCE, Delhi, 2002 (141) E.L.T. 819, it has been relied by the Tribunal that the clandestine manufacture of goods and clearances thereof cannot be discharged by the Department by raising assumptions and presumptions from the stray pieces of evidence. Some cogent and tangile evidence is required to be produced for discharging this burden. 15. In view of discussion made above, the Department has failed to prove that the appellants were carrying out dyeing and bleaching with the power operated jiggers since April, 1995. Therefore, the duty from that date could not be legally demanded from them. The appellants, as we find, had paid the duty from 21-5-99, the date of visit of the Officers to their factory, till 31-5-99. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
