TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er imposed under Rule 209A of the Rules. 2. The learned Consultant has contended that except for the statement of Shekhar Aggarwal, partner of the appellants firm, there is no evidence to prove that there was shortage of inputs in the factory premises. No panchnama was prepared. He has also contended that even the statement of Shekhar Aggarwal cannot be looked into for want of signatures of any officer of the Central Excise under it and that the same was also retracted through a letter dated 2-3-2000. No independent witness was also joined at the time of verification of the goods lying in the factory of the appellants and no record was signed by the officers of the Central Excise. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and the statement recorded was in English which he knew very well. He even put his signature under the statement. In his letter, all that he mentioned was that the stock of raw material was lying in the factory and the visiting officers forced him to debit Rs. 64448/- and that this debit should be treated as duty paid under protest. He, nowhere mentioned in that letter that the statement made by him was factually incorrect or that the same was procured from him under threat or coercion. Therefore, not only he, but even the appellants firm of which he is a partner, is bound by the statement. It is well settled that admission/confession is a substantial piece of evidence which can be used against the maker. The fact that the statement of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shekhar Aggarwal in his statement. The ratio of law laid down in D.M. Gears P. Ltd. is not attracted to the facts of the present case. That was a case of clubbing and the statement of the driver was sought to be relied upon who was a stranger to the manufacturer and his statement was not found to be sufficient piece of evidence, especially when the statement did not bear signatures of the officer. Similarly, the ratio of law laid down in Sober Plastics P. Ltd. and Another is not of any help to the appellants. In that case, the charge of clandestine removal of the goods was sought to be substantiated by the Department on the strength of the diary entries and Dharamakanta s slips without bringing on the record any corroborative evidence. Simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
