2018 (1) TMI 209 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeals of the assessee, solely by holding that there is no sufficient corroborative evidence to statement tendered by partner of assessee, (para 6.3), even when statement tendered by Central Excise Officer is admissible before court of law as piece of evidence? Held that - only on the basis of statement of Tara Chand who was the partner of the Company, case of the department is not sustainable - reliance placed in the case of Continental Cement Company vs. Union of India 2014 (9) TMI 243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , where it was held that unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, specifically the statement of the partner of the assessee.
2. Requirement of corroborative evidence to support the statement.
3. Evaluation of the Tribunal's decision in the context of existing legal precedents.

Detailed Analysis:

Admissibility and Sufficiency of Evidence:
The crux of the appellant's argument was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee solely on the grounds of insufficient corroborative evidence to support the statement tendered by the partner of the assessee. The appellant contended that the statement tendered by the Central Excise Officer should be admissible as a piece of evidence in the court of law. The Commissioner had relied heavily on the statement of the partner, Tarachand, which was considered a confessional statement and thus substantial evidence. However, this statement was retracted by the partner, which raised questions about its reliability.

Requirement of Corroborative Evidence:
The Tribunal reversed the view taken by the Commissioner and the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that a retracted statement, without additional supporting evidence, could not be the sole basis for confirming the demand and penalties. This approach aligns with the legal requirement that allegations of clandestine removal and evasion of duty must be substantiated by concrete evidence, such as records of excess production, raw material purchase, and sale proceeds.

Evaluation of the Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal's decision was supported by various precedents. For instance, in the case of Union of India vs. Jain Plas Pack (P) Ltd., it was held that findings of fact by the Tribunal do not give rise to a question of law. Similarly, in D.V. Kishore vs. Commr. Of Cus. (Seaports-Imports), the Madras High Court emphasized that retracted statements, without corroborative evidence, cannot be relied upon. The same principle was reiterated in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Omkar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Continental Cement Company vs. Union of India, where the courts held that demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions without tangible evidence.

The High Court of Rajasthan, in its judgment, concurred with the Tribunal's view, stating that the case of the department was not sustainable solely based on the statement of the partner, Tarachand. The court highlighted that the Tribunal had not committed any error in reversing the view taken by the Commissioner of Excise, as there was no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's findings. The court also referenced the Allahabad High Court's judgment, which underscored the necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of alleged clandestine removal and evasion of duty.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court affirming the Tribunal's decision that the absence of corroborative evidence rendered the department's case unsustainable. The court maintained that the Tribunal's findings were consistent with legal precedents, which require substantial and corroborative evidence to support allegations of clandestine removal and duty evasion.

← Previous Next →