TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut any corroborative material - 1727 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2010 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Y.N. Ravani, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the Appellant. [Judgment per : H.N. Devani, J. (Oral)]. - In this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 3-12-2007 made by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), proposing the following three questions : "[a] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and had committed a substantial error of law in not appreciating that what was admitted in the statement recorded u/s 14 of the Act need not be proved by fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se duty of Rs. 3,15,329/- was detected. Accordingly, a panchnama came to be drawn recording the said facts. Statement of a Director of the Company, Shri Rajnikant Omkarmal Agarwal also came to be recorded, under Section 14 of the Act, wherein apart from several other admissions, he admitted the contents of the panchnama. Statements of other employees of the respondent were also recorded under Section 14 of the Act. Subsequently, a show cause notice came to be issued to the respondent calling upon it to show cause as to why Central excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,30,275/- should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Act, as well as, as to why mandatory penalty and penal interest should not be imposed. 3. Pursuant to the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director of the assessee-Company submitted an affidavit wherein it was clearly mentioned that the stock verification was not conducted physically and was not compared with the recorded balance thereof. It was contended that the statements and panchnama were both recorded forcibly and the factual position of stock was not ascertained. He had, therefore, by affidavit dated 20-7-2003 retracted the facts mentioned in the panchnama and the statements. 6. The adjudicating authority, upon appreciation of evidence on record, found that upon going through the panchnama (Annexure "B"), it appeared that the assessee had cleared the disputed lot numbers of fabrics of man made fabrics to different parties on payment of central excise with valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fact recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) and has found no reason to interfere therewith. 9. Thus, all the authorities below viz., the adjudicating authority, Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have concurrently found that except for the statement of the Director of the assessee Company, Shri Rajnikant Agarwal recorded on 10-7-2003, there was no other evidence in support of the charge of clandestine removal of goods. The statement recorded on 10-7-2003 had subsequently been retracted by Shri Rajnikant Agarwal. Thus, it is apparent that the only evidence in respect of clandestine removal against the assessee was in the nature of the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Act, which had been subsequently retracted. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
