2000 (11) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of statements retracted by the appellants.
2. Allegations of planted evidence.
3. Adequacy of the Collector's order.
4. Justification of duty demands in Annexures A, B, C, and D.
5. Validity of corrigendum (Annexure E) and method of duty calculation.
6. Penalties imposed on the appellants.

Summary:

1. Validity of Statements Retracted by the Appellants:
The appellants contended that their statements were retracted as they were recorded "under pressure." However, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence supporting the retractions. The letters alleged to be retractions lacked postal receipts and did not convincingly demonstrate coercion. Thus, the original statements were deemed valid.

2. Allegations of Planted Evidence:
The appellants claimed that the file recovered from Trivedi's table was planted by officers or staff. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim and noted that such an allegation was not raised earlier. Therefore, this contention was rejected.

3. Adequacy of the Collector's Order:
The appellants argued that the Collector did not pass a speaking order. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the Collector provided substantial reasoning and details in his conclusions.

4. Justification of Duty Demands in Annexures A, B, C, and D:
- Annexure A: The Tribunal upheld the duty demand based on three lorry receipts, rejecting the appellants' arguments about short delivery and collusion with the transport agency.
- Annexure B: The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' claims of involuntary statements and planted files. The evidence supported the Collector's findings.
- Annexures C and D: The Tribunal noted errors in Annexure B could affect the duty demand in Annexures C and D. The Collector's findings on the assessable value of goods were questioned, and the matter was remanded for detailed examination.

5. Validity of Corrigendum (Annexure E) and Method of Duty Calculation:
The Tribunal found the method used by the Collector to calculate duty based on fuel and power charges arbitrary and unacceptable. The demand for duty in Annexure E was set aside.

6. Penalties Imposed on the Appellants:
The Tribunal acknowledged the clear admissions of evasion by the appellants but noted that the penalties and redemption fines should be reassessed after determining the correct duty amount. The penalties and fines were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Commissioner was directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, reassess the duty demands in Annexures B and D, and determine the consequent liabilities, including penalties and redemption fines, in accordance with the law.