2019 (2) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Demand based on relied upon documents and statements - applicability of judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Mekala Raja Plywoods 2014 (5) TMI 245 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Held that - Since after consideration of all the documents, cross examination in the same statements this Tribunal in the case of Mekala Raja Plywoods set aside the entire demand by allowing the party s appeal and dismissing the Revenue s appeal, the charges in the present case also not sustainable. Since the same statements which were relied upon in the present case have been retracted by the witnesses those statements commonly used in the present case do not have any substance as all the statements lost its truthfulness. Admittedly the present case is also made out only on the basis of all those evidences which were existing in the case of Mekala Raja Plywoods case, we do not hesitate to say that the ratio of Mekala Raja Plywoods case directly applies in the present case. Thus, in the identical set of case, under a common investigation and based on same evidences the Tribunal after considering cross examination and other evidence allow the appeal of the assessee - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged undervaluation of goods leading to demand of duty, penalty, interest, and penalties on directors.
2. Common investigation and evidence in two cases involving different companies manufacturing similar products.
3. Cross-examination and retraction of statements affecting the credibility of evidence.
4. Comparison of judgments in similar cases leading to setting aside of demands and penalties.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved allegations of undervaluation of goods by the appellant, a manufacturer of decorative plywood and veneer. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) officers conducted investigations at various premises, leading to a show cause notice (SCN) dated 09.05.2007 and an adjudication order dated 19.12.2008 confirming the demand of duty, penalties, and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially set aside the demand but upheld certain penalties, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that another group company, manufacturing similar products under the brand name "URO," was also under investigation by DGCEI officers. Both companies shared common facilities and networks. The Tribunal had previously set aside demands and penalties in a similar case involving the other group company, highlighting the common reliance on evidence and statements. The appellant contended that since the evidence was the same in both cases, the demand in the present case should not be sustained.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cross-examination in assessing the credibility of statements and evidence. It noted that statements relied upon by the department were retracted or negated during cross-examination, casting doubt on their reliability. The Tribunal's decision in a previous case underscored the significance of thorough examination and the impact of retracted statements on the validity of demands and penalties.

Issue 4:
By comparing the judgments in similar cases, the Tribunal found that the demands and penalties were set aside when evidence lacked credibility or when the adjudicating authority failed to provide acceptable reasoning. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence to support allegations of undervaluation and emphasized that demands based on assumptions or presumptions without proper backing were unsustainable. The Tribunal's decision to set aside demands and penalties in the present case aligned with its previous rulings, emphasizing the importance of valid evidence and adherence to procedural fairness.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals based on the consistent application of legal principles, cross-examination outcomes, and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the demands and penalties.