9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s lying in the factory premises in packed condition without entering the same in RG-1 register. Shri Panchal, partner of M/s. Metal Tubes in his statement admitted that the goods were not entered in the RG-1 register with an intention to clear the same clandestinely without payment of duty. He further admitted that these coils were manufactured out of copper tubes purchased from one Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. who have cleared the same without any invoice and without payment of duty. This fact was also admitted by Shri Chhaganlal Malikchand Shah, Director of M/s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued proposing the recovery of duty amounting to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned J.D.R. and perused the records. It was submitted by the learned J.D.R. that :- The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that statement alone is not sufficient and their corroboration by independent evidences is necessary. In the present case, the statements of both the person selling the goods and purchasing the goods have been recorded and therefore, the onus to prove shifts on the assessee to prove that the goods were cleared on payment of duty and they are not required to pay further duty. In this regard reliance is placed on decision of Honorable Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Vimal Alloys Ltd. reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 33 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it is held that department not required to bring any corroborati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by their buyers of the goods i.e. M/s. Metal Tubes and these statements have not been retracted so far. In case of such a clear cut admission without any retraction there is no further need of any other corroborative evidence as admission is not required to be proved as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Systems Components - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 136 (S.C.) and Tribunal decision in case of Royco Biscuits Co. - 2000 (123) E.L.T. 1063 (Tribunal). In view of above, I hold that the proceedings has been wrongly dropped by Commissioner (Appeals), I therefore, set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of additional Commissioner. (Pronounced in Court on 5-6-06) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
