2016 (2) TMI 22 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of duty solely on the basis of confessional statement - confessional statements made by the assessee and other employees of the assessee - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) put heavy burden on the assesse to disprove the case of the revenue - When in fact, the confirmation of duties and penalties were based on confessional statements which were promptly retracted and there was no other independent material on record, the Tribunal correctly reversed the orders of the authorities below. No question of law arises. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Confirmation of demand based on confessional statements; Reliance on confessional statements by Revenue authorities; Retraction of confessional statements; Burden of proof on the assessee; Lack of independent material to support demand confirmation.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment revolves around the reliance placed by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) on confessional statements to confirm the demand. The Tribunal overturned these decisions, emphasizing that duty demands cannot be solely confirmed based on confessional statements. The Revenue authorities heavily relied on these statements, which were later retracted within a short period. The Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a significant burden on the assessee to disprove the revenue's case, highlighting the lack of evidentiary reasons for the retraction of the confessional statements.

The appellate order showcased the Commissioner's stance, emphasizing the absence of documentary evidence supporting the assessee's arguments. The Commissioner pointed out the lack of corroboration to the retraction of statements and the defense put forth by the assessee. The denial of purchases by other parties further strengthened the reliance on the confessional statements as clinching evidence. The Commissioner highlighted the mala fide intentions of the appellants based on the discrepancies in their statements and actions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal correctly overturned the decisions of the lower authorities as the confirmation of duties and penalties solely relied on retracted confessional statements without any additional independent material on record. The High Court dismissed the tax appeal and civil application, concluding that no question of law arose in this case. The judgment underscores the importance of substantial and independent evidence in tax matters, cautioning against overreliance on retracted confessional statements for confirming demands.