2009 (2) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty payment on dyeing of manmade fabrics without electricity.
2. Validity of admission statement by the proprietor.
3. Lack of corroborating evidence in the case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was accused of not paying duty on dyeing manmade fabrics without electricity. The case was based on the jigger machine being connected to electric power during a visit by officers. The appellant argued that no power was used before a specific date and presented evidence from merchant manufacturers regarding job charges paid. The Revenue's case relied heavily on the admission statement of the proprietor, which was later retracted. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's case lacked substantial evidence beyond the proprietor's statement, and no verification was done regarding the motor connected to the machine or the power consumption details. The lack of corroborating evidence led to the Tribunal granting relief to the appellant due to the benefit of the doubt.

2. The validity of the admission statement by the proprietor was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal noted that the statements were retracted and that no investigation was conducted regarding the genuineness of the bill related to the motor purchase connected to the jigger machine. Despite the Commissioner's findings on electricity consumption, there was no discussion on how it conclusively linked to the power consumed by the machine. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of verification of the motor's purchase date, serial numbers, or details, which could have clarified the timeline of events. The lack of thorough investigation and reliance solely on the proprietor's statement weakened the Revenue's case.

3. The case highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence in establishing liability. The Tribunal emphasized that without inculpatory statements from merchant manufacturers, electricity consumption details, motor verification, or other supporting evidence like stock discrepancies, the benefit of the doubt must favor the appellant. The lack of concrete proof beyond the retracted statement of the proprietor led the Tribunal to allow the appeal and grant relief to the appellants. The judgment underscored the necessity of thorough investigation and substantial evidence to establish duty liability conclusively.