TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants recorded during investigations. The said statements have not been further corroborated by the Revenue by producing any independent evidence. No export based as admitted as having purchased the goods from the said deponents, neither the vehicles used for such export stand identified. Not only that even off-routes, alleged to have been adopted by the present appellants for illegal exports to Nepal have been identified. Cross-examination - HELD THAT:- The deponents of the said statements have not been allowed to be cross-examined. It is well settled law that statements alone cannot be held to be the admissible evidence for the purpose of holding against the assesses without allowing cross-examination of the same. Inasmuch as in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the appellants and Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 3. As per facts on record, an information was received by the DRI that huge quantity of rice had been exported to Nepal from India, by tractor, trolley and truck etc. illegally through off-routes through Indo-Nepal border. The said illegal exports of rice from India were entered in the Pragyapan Patras (Bills of Entry) filed at the LCSs on Nepal side. Accordingly investigations were initiated and with the help of Enforcement Directorate, Lucknow, it was found that the said three appellants were involved in procuring the supplies of rice from M/s.Ganesh Agro Udyog (P) Ltd., Maharajganj etc. as also identifying th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e materia by section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which has been judicially interpreted by various Courts as being essential for admission of the statements. As per the Revenue, the said persons have exported the non-Basmati rice in the past to Nepal through tractors, trolleys etc.. However, there is not even a single tractor, trolley identified by the Revenue to substantiate their allegation. By relying upon various precedent decisions, it stands submitted that the conclusions cannot be drawn against the appellants based upon their confessional statements, which have not been tested on the tool of cross-examination and examination in chief. 6. We have also heard the learned Authorized Representative appearing for the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it also stands held in various judicial pronouncements that examination in chief of the deponent is also required to be done, in the absence of which the said statements cannot be held to be admissible. Reference can be made to Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court s decision in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (340) E.L.T. 67 (P H)]. Inasmuch as in the present appeal, the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the statements, without any further corroboration and that too in respect of past activities, we are of the view that imposition of penalties upon the appellants is not justified. Accordingly the same is set aside and all the three appeals are allowed. 9. As regards the Revenue s appeal, tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
