TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant in this Tribunal s orders, the penalty in the present case is also not sustainable. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of Himanshu Nandalal Jagani Ors [ 2022 (9) TMI 428 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ], relied upon where it was held that It is seen from the said slips that there is no mention of the manufacturer s name and therefore there is no direct correlation with the main noticee in this case, namely Pure Alloys Limited. Moreover, it is seen that there was no examination in chief or cross examination done and therefore, the only link between these weighment slips and the alleged manufacturer namely Pure Alloys, is the statements of Juvansinh Jeshabhai Solanki and Nareshbhai Ramsang Rana which cannot be admitted as evidence in absence of Examination under Section 9D of Central Excise Act. In these circumstances, no penalties in respect of these weighment slips also can be imposed. From the above order of this Tribunal it can be seen that identical facts and issues were involved in the above cases of M/s. Pure Alloys Ltd, Shri Hari Steel Industries , Bansal Castings wherein all the present appellants were implicated as a common person. Therefore, following the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries and also in the case of M/s. Pure Alloys Ltd. in the said cases the Tribunal has taken a view that the appellants are not liable for the penalty. The common investigation was carried out in the present case and cases of M/s. Pure Enterprises Pvt Ltd, M/s. Pure Alloys Ltd and Shri Hari Steel Industries. It is also observed that same statements, evidences such as broker s diaries etc were relied upon in all the cases, therefore, facts of all the three cases are absolutely identical. Since this Tribunal has already taken a view regarding penalty on the appellant in this Tribunal s orders (Supra), the penalty in the present case is also not sustainable. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of Himanshu Nandalal Jagani Ors vide final order no A/11082 -11089/2022 dated 01.09.2022 is reproduced below:- 4. I have gone through rival submissions. It is admitted fact of both sides that most of the investigation in the present case are not only identical but common to the case of Shri Hari Steel Industries. It is a fact that in case of Shri Hari Steel Industries also no shortage or excess were found in the factory premises, no investigation at the buyer s end was conducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the enquiries were conducted at different places as deposed by Shri Anurag Sharma, Inspector, in his cross-examination on 4-3- 2002. Out of 19 consignments said to have been cleared by the Appellant No. 1 without payment of duty on the basis of five transporter, we observe that in respect of two consignments, it has been mentioned by the Revenue that the same may not pertain to the Appellants. Further, only one transporter Shri Sanjay Garg of M/s. Balaji Transporter Co. was produced for cross-examination which accounts for only two consignments out of 19 consignments in question. Shri Garg, it is observed from the record of crossexamination, has deposed that they generally work as commission agent and provide transport to Appellant No. 1; the payment is used to be received directly by the drivers after delivery of the goods at the consignee s end and in case the driver did not report back for the next 3-4 days, it was presumed that the goods had reached the consignees end. Further, the name of the Applicant No. 1 on one GR No. 34 had been written not by Shri Sanjay Garg, but by his brother, whose statement has not been recorded and on GR 187, there is no mention of the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee s employee in a diary or on the basis of third party s record in the absence of any corroborative evidence. It has also been the consistent view of the Tribunal that the statements of the witnesses, without allowing the assessee to test the correctness of the same by cross-examining those witnesses; cannot be made the basis for holding the allegation against the assessee. (Takshila Spinners v. CCE, supra). Similar views have been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd., supra wherein the Tribunal has held that reliance cannot be placed on the documents maintained by a third party who did not have the courage to come forward for cross-examination in order to test the veracity and correctness of the private record maintained by him. It has also been held by the Tribunal in the case of Kothari Synthetics Industries v. CCE, Jaipur, 2002 (141) E.L.T. 558 (T) that entries made in the transport Register of the transport company could not be accepted as a conclusive proof of clandestine receipt of goods from that transport company for want of corroboration from any tangible evidence. Following the ratio of these decision, the duty demand cannot be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellants in respect of 149 consignments. We, therefore, set aside the demand of duty and penalty imposed on Appellant-company and consequently the demand of interest. From the above decision which is based on various Supreme Court decisions, it is clear that when the brokers whose statements were recorded are not produced for cross examination such statements cannot be relied upon against the assessee. Therefore, as per the settled legal position, since in the present case witnesses, i.e. brokers and transporters were not allowed for cross examination, their statements cannot be relied upon. In such a case, the only evidence left is the diaries/private records of the brokers. Since the statements cannot be relied upon, these records in isolation has no evidentiary valued particularly when the same was not corroborated with the statutory records of the appellant. In the case of M/s Charminar Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) on the issue of third party evidence, Tribunal has observed as follow: 6. Considered the submissions of both the sides. We have the charge of clandestine removal of bags-in-boxes by the Appellants has not been established by Revenue which has main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice alleging clandestine removal cannot be issued based on assumption and presumption and as held by the Supreme Court in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 172), the findings based on assumption and presumption without any tangible evidence will be vitiated by an error of law. We, therefore, set aside the demand on charge of clandestine removal. 6. Considered the submissions of both the sides. We have the charge of clandestine removal of bags-in-boxes by the Appellants has not been established by Revenue which has mainly relied upon the difference in figures of sale of the impugned product reflected in PMX Reports. It is not disputed by Revenue that these reports are prepared by M/s. Hyderabad Beverages and not by the Appellants. No evidence has been brought on record to show any excess production of the impugned product by the Appellants by way of procuring necessary raw materials. In a similar situation in the case of Moon Beverages wherein the charges of clandestine removal was made on the basis of computerized sheets of sales figures maintained by M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. whom the figures were sent by the assessee, the Tribunal has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order in para 3.4.8. It is seen from the said slips that there is no mention of the manufacturer s name and therefore there is no direct correlation with the main noticee in this case, namely Pure Alloys Limited. Moreover, it is seen that there was no examination in chief or cross examination done and therefore, the only link between these weighment slips and the alleged manufacturer namely Pure Alloys, is the statements of Juvansinh Jeshabhai Solanki and Nareshbhai Ramsang Rana which cannot be admitted as evidence in absence of Examination under Section 9D of Central Excise Act. In these circumstances, no penalties in respect of these weighment slips also can be imposed. 8. In view of above findings, the penalties imposed against various appellants are set aside and appeals are allowed. 4.1 From the above order of this Tribunal it can be seen that identical facts and issues were involved in the above cases of M/s. Pure Alloys Ltd, Shri Hari Steel Industries , Bansal Castings wherein all the present appellants were implicated as a common person. Therefore, following the aforesaid order the penalty in the present case is not sustainable. 5. Accordingly, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
