TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmed a demand for differential duty of ₹ 51,24,406/- against a textile processor M/S Sonal Prints by holding that the said manufacturer had under-valued clearances of man-made fabrics which it had processed on job-work basis from grey fabric supplied by the Appellant's trading firm named Jaitex Silk Industries. A penalty ₹ 10,00,000/- of has been imposed upon the Appellant under Rule 209A read with Rule 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the finding that he had aided and abetted M/s Sonal Prints in evading excise duty through undervaluation of goods, by filing false joint price declarations under their signatures. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue that falls for consideration is whether the Appellant had given false price declarations to M/s Sonal Prints under his signature as found by the Commissioner and thereby aided the said processor in evading excise duty by undervaluing processed man-made fabrics. The dispute relates to the period April 1996-May 1998 during which period the Appellant was the proprietor of a textile trading concern named Jaitex Silk Industries. As seen from Ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. I find that the findings against Appellant appear in paras 26, 27 and 33 of the order, wherein the Commissioner after observing that the Appellant had admitted in his statement dated 22.6.1998, that either 'he' or 'his representative' had signed the joint price declarations filed with the department from time to time, concluded that the price declaration were filed under the appellants signature. The Appellant's contention in defense that price declarations were not signed either by him or by his authorized signatory has been rejected by the Commissioner by holding that the price declarations were indeed filed under the Appellant's signature. Having compared the signatures appearing on each of the six price declarations on record with the signatures of the appellant in his various statements on record, I find this finding of the Commissioner to be incorrect. The signatures on the price declarations do not match with that of the Appellant as appearing on his various statements. The finding recorded by the Commissioner against the appellant is therefore totally incorrect, and the appeal needs to be allowed only on this ground. However, since considerable ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant that the alterations made in the appellant's statement dated 22.6.1998 change the entire character and meaning of the above statement. Since none of the declarations on record are signed by the Appellant himself, that part of the appellants statement admitting that he had himself signed some joint declarations is proved false. This itself is sufficient basis for rendering this statement unreliable, Further, even the remaining part of the statement viz., that some representative of the appellant may have signed the declarations fails to inspire any confidence, in view of the over writings extracted above, as well as in the absence of any further probe about the identity of the so called representative who had signed these declarations. In this context, I note that the appellant had, in his reply dated 11.5.1999 resiled from his statements by saying that they were recorded under duress. Even if I was to reject this belated retraction, the question that still remains to be answered is whether a person can be held guilty of an offence based entirely on his own admission, which is later resiled from, without any corroboration by independent evidence. The Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither registered with the excise department, nor was he himself required to file such declarations with the department. In a situation where the signatures appearing on the joint price declaration are not even purporting to be that of the merchant, as the word proprietor under the rubber seal of Jaitex Silk Industries has been scored off by pen, and where no name or designation of the signatory is mentioned, it was only logical for the investigating officer to enquire from the processor, M/s Sonal Prints as to how and from whom they had received these price declarations purporting to contain the signature of an authorized representative of Jaitex Silk Industries. This was the most obvious line of enquiry that any astute and fair investigating officer should have pursued particularly in the absence of any name, designation or authority letter of the signatory being on record. No such enquiry was done on this material aspect. This failure on the part of the investigating officer, when seen in the context of the material alterations made in the so called admission statement of the appellant impels me to draw an adverse inference against the revenue, Since the joint price declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
