2006 (5) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand and penalty imposition for manufacturing and clearing ERW Pipes without duty payment.
2. Reliability of evidence from recovered Note Book and statements of involved parties.
3. Cross-examination of key witness and its impact on the demand sustainability.
4. Retraction of statements by involved parties and its significance in confirming the demand.
5. Comparison with precedent cases and its applicability to the current scenario.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against an Adjudication order confirming a demand of Rs. 59,79,963/- and imposing an equal penalty on the appellant for manufacturing and clearing ERW Pipes without paying duty. The appellant contested the basis of the demand, which relied heavily on a Note Book prepared by a key witness, Shri Ram Kumar, who was not produced for cross-examination. The appellant argued that without this witness being cross-examined, the demand was not sustainable.

2. The case involved the recovery of a Note Book from the premises of a trading firm, which detailed the receipt of goods from the appellant without proper documentation. Statements from involved parties, including the proprietor of the trading firm and the in-charge of the godown, corroborated the entries in the Note Book. The Revenue asserted that the evidence from the Note Book, along with statements and bank account details, supported the demand for duty payment.

3. The appellant raised concerns about the non-production of Shri Ram Kumar for cross-examination, highlighting the lack of opportunity to challenge crucial evidence. However, the Tribunal noted that the statements made by the key witness were supported by the proprietor of the trading firm, who disclosed additional incriminating details, such as the bank account used for depositing proceeds from the undocumented sales.

4. The retraction of statements by the involved parties, particularly the proprietor of the trading firm, was addressed by the Tribunal. Despite the retraction, the Tribunal analyzed the circumstances of the retraction and found that the disclosures made were within the personal knowledge of the proprietor. The retraction was deemed to be limited to the circumstances of statement-taking and did not negate the substance of the disclosures.

5. The Tribunal compared the current case with a precedent cited by the appellant. The Tribunal differentiated the current situation, emphasizing the direct involvement of the proprietor in both the manufacturing unit and the trading firm where the irregularities were observed. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence and circumstances presented did not support the appellant's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand and penalty imposition based on the corroborative evidence from the Note Book, statements of involved parties, and the proprietor's disclosures. The lack of cross-examination of a key witness was outweighed by the overall evidentiary support for the demand, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.