9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f stantering. They are availing Cenvat Credit on Man Made Fabrics and clearing the same after on payment of duty and for cotton fabrics they are maintaining Form IV register. On 09/09/2001, the Anti Evasion team investigated their factory premises. On physical verification of stock, everything was found in order but some private records was resumed which were in the form of delivery challan books, notebook and some loose slips. Statements of two of the employees were recorded to admit the clandestine removal of the goods. Thereafter, on 06/04/2002 the appellant No. 2 was also called who admitted clandestine clearance but stated that he has no knowledge with regard to 7 computer generated invoice and 39 loose slips. The statement was also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He also submits that the statement which has been relied upon by the adjudicating authority has not been examined in chief during the adjudication. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (260) ELT 514 (All.) and Jindal Durgs Pvt. Ltd. V/s Union of India - 2016 ELT 67 (P & H). He also submits that the five of the suppliers have in their statement have stated that they were receiving goods without payment of duty but out of total quantity of 21,24,465 meters, the only quantity pertains to these suppliers work out to 6,17,650 meters. Therefore, without any corroborative evidence, the demands against the appellant cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not examined in chief during the course of adjudication in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, same cannot be relied upon in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and Punjab and Haryana in the case of Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and Jindal Durgs Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) respectively. 9. Further, I find that in the case of Davinder Sandhu Impex Ltd. Vs CCE [2016 (337) ELT 99 (T)] this Tribunal has held that although there is a confessional statement but the same cannot be the basis to demand duty without any corroborative evidence. Therefore, the demand confirmed against the appellant is not sustainable. 10. In view of above analysis, as the documents recovered during the course of inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
