TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts stands settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of KI. PAVUNNY VERSUS ASSTT. COLLR. (HQ.) , C. EX. COLLECTORATE, COCHIN [ 1997 (2) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that confessional statement of accuse if found to be voluntarily can form the sole basis of conviction. Only if it is retracted, the Court is required to examine whether it was obtained by threat, duress or promise and whether the confession is trivial. In the present case, we find that there is no retraction of the aforementioned admission/confession on the part of the proprietor of the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain - Thus, the same has rightly been considered by the adjudicating authority as the basis of confirming the demand for manufacture of goods of other brands and also for denying the entitlement to SSI exemption Notification to the appellant. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The fact of non registration coupled with the non retracted statement of the proprietor of the appellant and also coupled with the seizure of goods of other brands from the premises of the appellant is sufficient to hold that the appellant had intentionally not got the registration with the sole objective to ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at separate show cause notices dated 30.08.2011 and 06.07.2015 were issued proposing confiscation of seized goods and demanding the appropriate duty, alleging the appellant to have been indulged in unaccounted purchase and clandestine packing/re-packing/labelling of excisable goods that the sole intent to clear the sale without the cover of proper invoices and without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. It was also alleged that in order to circumvent their liability they have not brought on record procurement of raw material manufacturing and clearances of branded finished goods/packed goods in violation of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made there under rather have adopted a dubious method of organising their clandestine purchase, manufacture and clearances from their respective premises to achieve the objective of suppressing their actual production in order to keep themselves within the exemption limit prescribed in SSI Exemption Notification No. 08/2003 CE dated 01.03.2003. The said show cause notice was initially adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 54/ADC/D I dated 30.09.2016 vide which the demand of Central Excise dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayed to be set aside. 4. While rebutting these arguments, it is submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the adjudicating authority has strictly proceeded based on the evidences available which are the statements not only of the proprietor of the appellant but of the producers as well as the suppliers thereof. There is a clear confession by the proprietor of the appellant that he is involved in procuring plain auto parts without brands and branding the same in the brand name and style of Hero Honda, TVS, Yamaha and Suzuki, in addition to GETEX brand. Hence, there is no infirmity in the Order. Learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Shiv Shakti Steel Tube Vs. Commissioner reported at 2008 (221) E.L.T. 166 (P H) wherein it was held that in case of clandestine removal the statements made under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 by a witness or a party are exfacie admissible in evidence to sustain penalty. With respect to invoking the extended period of limitation it is submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record that the appellant was not entitled for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and whether the confession is trivial. In the present case, we find that there is no retraction of the aforementioned admission/confession on the part of the proprietor of the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain. Thus, we are of the opinion that the same has rightly been considered by the adjudicating authority as the basis of confirming the demand for manufacture of goods of other brands and also for denying the entitlement to SSI exemption Notification to the appellant. 6. Though the appellant has impressed upon the majority decision in the case of Radha Madhav Corporation Ltd.(supra) wherein it was held that statements alone cannot be made the basis of upholding the findings of clandestine removal without there being any corroborative evidence but we are of the opinion that, in the present case, that there is a sufficient corroborative evidence to the admission of the appellant not only in the form of the record recovered but also in the light of the fact that goods of other brands were seized from the premises of the appellant. Not only this, there are the invoices recovered by the Department during the search which shows that the appellants were clearing the goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther contention of the appellant about the show cause notice issued by Delhi Commissionerate I for the appellant s unit in Dwarka to be without jurisdiction: 8.1 We observe from the record that searches at the appellant s premises at Karol Bagh as well as at Dwarka unit and also at the residence of the proprietor at Dwarka were carried out on the strength of search warrants issued by the competent authorities. The impugned show cause notice specifically recites that the search warrants for the premises of Dwarka were issued by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi II. In fact, the officers from both the Commissionerate conducted the search at Dwarka. We also observe that a separate show cause notice was issued to Dwarka unit of the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi II which was adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division V vide Order dated 06.11.2012. Hence, the Commissionerate having appropriate jurisdiction over Dwarka had already taken an appropriate action against the Dwarka factory of the noticee. Thus, we hold that the impugned show cause notice has no fault lying as far as the jurisdiction is concerned. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
