2016 (10) TMI 947 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - 96 MT of MS bars - clearance from factory not recorded in daily stock account register - reliance on statement - Held that - the decision in the case of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA relied upon where it was held that the statement recorded by the Central Excise Officer can be relied upon. The statement of Shri Todarmal G. Mundada, partner of the appellants, admitting the clandestine clearance of 96 MT have never been retracted. Cross examination of witness cannot be claimed as a right and would depend on case to case basis. Nothing new will emerge in the cross examination when all facts are accepted and are on record. It is well settled position in law that what has been admitted need not be proved. In fact, the appellants have immediately deposited full duty on being pointed out that the invoices for impugned clearances were not in their record. Under the facts and circumstances for the case, there is no doubt that the appellants had cleared these consignments in a clandestine manner without the cover of invoices and without paying the central excise duty - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Non-appearance of the Appellant during hearings
- Allegations of clandestine clearance of goods without proper documentation
- Reliance on statements of individuals involved in the case
- Plea for cross-examination of witnesses
- Legal precedents cited by the Respondent
- Adjudication of the case and final decision

Non-appearance of the Appellant during hearings:
The Appellant failed to appear during multiple hearings despite being given opportunities. The Tribunal noted the lack of interest from the Appellant's side and proceeded with the case based on the submissions of the learned Assistant Commissioner.

Allegations of clandestine clearance of goods without proper documentation:
The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of goods by the Appellant without maintaining proper records or paying central excise duty. Statements from the partner of the Appellant and the transporter implicated the Appellant in these actions.

Reliance on statements of individuals involved in the case:
The Tribunal relied on the statements given by the partner of the Appellant, which were not retracted at any stage. These statements admitted to the clandestine clearance of goods and non-maintenance of proper records, leading to the conclusion that the Appellant was involved in the wrongdoing.

Plea for cross-examination of witnesses:
The Appellant requested cross-examination of a witness but the plea was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the witness's statement already established the clandestine removal of goods. The rejection was based on legal precedents supporting the decision that cross-examination is not an absolute right and may not provide new information when all facts are already on record.

Legal precedents cited by the Respondent:
The Respondent cited case laws to support their arguments, including cases involving similar issues of clandestine removal of goods without proper documentation. These cases were used to strengthen the case against the Appellant.

Adjudication of the case and final decision:
Based on the evidence presented, including statements from involved individuals and legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant had indeed engaged in clandestine clearance of goods without proper documentation or payment of central excise duty.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.