2015 (10) TMI 700 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - Retracted statments - Held that - Entire issue is based on realm of appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the department did not have sufficient evidence to establish the clandestine removal of goods. Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, submitted that the reliance was placed by the department on diaries seized during the course of the investigation and on the statement of the responsible officer of the assessee - statement of the assessee was later on retracted. Further, the Tribunal having considered the evidence on record and come to the factual findings, in our opinion, no question of law arises. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding insufficient evidence for clandestine removal of goods.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in accepting a belated retraction of a statement.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The primary issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in finding insufficient evidence for clandestine removal of goods. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous as diaries seized during the investigation and a statement by the officer of the assessee provided sufficient evidence. However, the court noted that the statement of the assessee was later retracted, and the Tribunal, after considering the evidence, concluded that the department lacked adequate proof to establish clandestine removal. The court held that since the Tribunal had made factual findings based on evidence, no question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.

Issue 2: The second issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal erred in accepting a belated retraction of a statement made by the officer of the assessee. The Revenue argued that the retraction, made after about 2 1/2 years of recording the statement, should not have been accepted. However, the court found that the Tribunal had already considered the evidence on record and arrived at factual conclusions. As no legal question was identified in this regard, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the Tax Appeal.