9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation commenced on the basis of information that the appellant was taking CENVAT Credit on the HR coils/sheets of thickness below 10mm only on the basis of invoices without receiving goods, it was revealed that the appellant, a manufacturer, did not use HR coils/plates of thickness below 10mm. The statement of Shri Naresh Singh, Foreman was recorded on 7/10/2006 wherein he categorically admitted that the appellant never received coils /plates of thickness below 10mm. The statement of the proprietor of the appellant Shri Surender Chauhan was also recorded on 7/10/2006 wherein he agreed with the statement of Shri Naresh Singh that the appellant never received HR coils/plates below 10mm. The proprietor reiterated the same in the second stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, Foreman is concerned, it is settled law that if the statement of the person is relied upon and the appellant seeks cross-examination of that person, it is to be allowed if not allowing cross-examination will cause prejudice to the appellant (Supreme Court judgments in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. 2015 (8) SC 519 refers). As the statement of Shri Naresh Singh is relied upon against the appellant not allowing his cross-examination does cause prejudice to the appellant and therefore in the absence of his cross-examination, Shri Naresh Singhs statement cannot be used as evidence against the appellant (Refer SC Judgment in the case of CCE Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC). However, I find that the proprietor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in this case is 2005-06 to 2006-2007. The certificate does not certify that the appellant was receiving coil below 10mm during the relevant period. 6. As regards the contention of the Advocate, there is no corroborative evidence other than the statement of the proprietor suffice to say that proprietor's statements, voluntary as those are fully and comprehensively cover and sustain the allegation and have full evidentiary value and therefore absence of corroboratory evidence is inconsequential because Revenue does not have to collect evidence beyond what is required to establish the case. In the case of K.I. Pavunny Vs. Astt Collector Cochin 2002-TIOL -7390-SC- CUS LB Supreme Court held that "confessional statement, if found voluntarily, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
