2001 (9) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the admissibility of a creel register as evidence, the reliability of statements made by employees during investigation, the sufficiency of evidence to establish clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, and the authority to impose duty and penalties based on the evidence presented.

Admissibility of Creel Register as Evidence:
The Senior Counsel for the appellant questions the admissibility of the creel register as evidence, arguing that its ownership has not been established, rendering it without evidentiary value. He also challenges the entries in the register, contending that they do not support the Commissioner's conclusions. Additionally, he asserts that statements made by individuals mentioned in the register were retracted the next day, casting doubt on their reliability.

Reliability of Statements and Investigation:
The departmental representative defends the creel register, stating that it contains details related to the removal of goods. He questions the retractions filed by the individuals who provided statements during the investigation, citing procedural grounds for their validity.

Analysis of Creel Register Entries:
The creel register contains various columns detailing information such as denier/filament, lot numbers, issue dates, and quantities. The Senior Counsel explains abbreviations used in the register and distinguishes certain entries as suspicious. He argues that the register's entries do not clearly differentiate between activities like twisting and drawing yarn, making it difficult to ascertain the nature of the recorded transactions.

Reliability of Employee Statements:
The Commissioner relies on statements made by employees, including a director of the company, as corroboration for the evidence presented. The employees later filed retractions, citing threats of arrest as the reason for their initial admissions. The Commissioner accepts the retractions but questions their validity based on the level at which they were submitted.

Investigation and Confirmation of Transactions:
The investigation included statements from suppliers and purchasers of the goods in question. However, some suppliers denied supplying the materials, and the department did not issue summons to all alleged purchasers. The appellant's counsel argues that the department's failure to confirm transactions from purchasers weakens the case against the manufacturer.

Conclusion and Decision:
After analyzing the evidence presented, the Tribunal concludes that the case against the manufacturer has not been established to the required degree of probability. Consequently, the demand for duty and penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside, and the appeals are allowed, providing consequential relief.