2016 (8) TMI 116 - AT - Central Excise

Claim of exemption - manufacture of fabrics - cotton dominated fabrics or polyester dominated fabrics - Notifications Nos.07/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000, 03/2001-CE and 14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 during the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3-2003. - retraction of statement - Held that - While adjudicating the case, the adjudicating authority has not given any credence to the cross examination done by the learned for the respondents wherein the witness itself has categorically stated that he was pressurized by the department to make inculpatory statement against the respondents on the pretext that the witness shall not be dragged, if the witness writes the statement as per wishes of the department. It was also revealed that in the cross examination, there is evidence on records that the invoices of the descriptions/contents of blended yarn are not written but the witness was compelled by the officers to write in his handwriting the contents of yarn on photocopies of the invoices. Even at the time of cross examination, in the original copies of the invoices, there was no mention the contents of yarn. In this case the original invoice is the main evidence to reveal the truth but the statement made by the witness during the cross examination that the original invoices does not have mention of the description of the goods which has not been considered by the adjudicating authority, therefore, the evidence in form of photocopy of invoice is not acceptable. Moreover on photocopies of the invoices, the witness was forced to write in his handwriting as per the wishes of the departmental officers. This issue has neither been denied by the Revenue nor raised in the appeal before us which is a crucial evidence to decide the case. No demand - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of goods as cotton-dominated fabrics instead of polyester-dominated fabrics.
2. Credibility and admissibility of confessional statements and their retraction.
3. Evidence evaluation, including original invoices and lack of sample testing.
4. Justification of the demand for duty, interest, and penalties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Misdeclaration of Goods:
The primary issue was whether the respondent misdeclared polyester-dominated fabrics as cotton-dominated fabrics to avail exemption from Central Excise duty under Notifications Nos. 07/2000-CE, 03/2001-CE, and 14/2002-CE. The Revenue alleged that the respondent cleared knitted fabrics made of man-made fibers by misdeclaring them as cotton fabrics, which were exempt from duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the records, including challans and invoices, showed the activity of dyeing cotton fabrics, not polyester fabrics.

2. Credibility and Admissibility of Confessional Statements:
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by not giving credence to the confessional statements made by the suppliers, which were later retracted. The Revenue cited legal precedents to support the credibility of confessional statements even if retracted after a significant period. However, the respondents contended that the statements were made under duress and were not voluntary. During cross-examination, witnesses revealed that they were pressured to make inculpatory statements. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the cross-examination where witnesses stated they were coerced into making statements, thus diminishing the reliability of those statements.

3. Evidence Evaluation:
The Tribunal emphasized that the original invoices did not mention the description of the goods as polyester fabrics. The photocopies of the invoices, where the description was allegedly written under duress, were not considered credible evidence. Additionally, no samples were drawn during the investigation to verify the nature of the fabrics. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the purchase records and ledgers supported the respondents' claim of dealing with cotton fabrics. The absence of corroborative evidence from the Revenue weakened their case.

4. Justification of the Demand for Duty, Interest, and Penalties:
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalties based on the statements recorded during the investigation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that these statements were not corroborated by any documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that mere statements, especially when retracted, could not form the basis for confirming the demand without other reliable evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents had rightly availed the exemption for cotton knitted fabrics and that the Revenue's case lacked substantial evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), finding that the respondents had correctly availed the exemption for cotton fabrics and that the Revenue's allegations were unsupported by credible evidence. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the demand for duty, interest, and penalties was deemed unjustified.