2000 (12) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods.
2. Refusal of cross-examination of Shri Subhash Singh.
3. Validity of evidence based on note-books recovered.
4. Reliance on retracted statements.

Summary:

Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Goods:
The Commissioner confirmed a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 17,58,084.00 for Banphool Perfumed Hair Oil, alleging clandestine manufacture and removal between 15-11-1997 and 31-7-1998. An additional duty of Rs. 7,258.00 was confirmed for goods found short during a joint stock-taking on 31-7-1998. A penalty equivalent to the duty amount was imposed u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest u/s 11AB.

Refusal of Cross-Examination of Shri Subhash Singh:
The appellants requested cross-examination of Shri Subhash Singh, from whom two note-books were recovered. The Commissioner denied this request, stating there was no justification. The appellants argued this refusal violated principles of natural justice and fair play, rendering the order illegal, invalid, null, and void.

Validity of Evidence Based on Note-Books Recovered:
The Commissioner's order was based on entries in two note-books recovered from Shri Subhash Singh. The appellants contended that Shri Subhash Singh was not their worker and that the note-books were not related to them. They provided a list of workers from their statutory records, which the Commissioner dismissed as not being vital evidence. The Tribunal found this dismissal unconvincing and based on assumptions.

Reliance on Retracted Statements:
The Commissioner relied on statements from Shri Rajib Mukherjee and Shri A.K. Pandey, which were retracted immediately. The appellants argued that no reasons were given for relying on these retracted statements and that they did not reflect any clandestine activities.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal found that the refusal to allow cross-examination of Shri Subhash Singh violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the entries in the note-books could at most create a doubt but could not serve as legal evidence to establish the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal referenced several case laws, emphasizing that suspicion cannot replace proof and that corroborative evidence is necessary to sustain such charges.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants, as the demand and penalty were not sustainable based on the evidence presented.