9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Commissioner has confirmed a demand for differential duty of Rs. 51,24,406/- against a textile processor M/S Sonal Prints by holding that the said manufacturer had under-valued clearances of man-made fabrics which it had processed on job-work basis from grey fabric supplied by the Appellant's trading firm named Jaitex Silk Industries. A penalty Rs. 10,00,000/- of has been imposed upon the Appellant under Rule 209A read with Rule 225 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the finding that he had aided and abetted M/s Sonal Prints in evading excise duty through undervaluation of goods, by filing false joint price declarations under their signatures. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the records, it transp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was able to undervalue processed man-made fabrics. In the first round of adjudication the case proceedings against Sonal Prints was dropped and the entire demand for duty was confirmed against the appellant and in addition to other penalties, a separate penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed upon him under Rule 209k. That order was challenged in appeal both by the Appellant as also by the Revenue primarily on the ground that in law duty liability could only have been fastened upon the manufacturer i.e. Sonal Prints, and not on a merchant such as the appellant. This Tribunal by it's order dated 9.12.2005 disposed of all the appeals by remanding the entire case back to the Commissioner. In the denovo adjudication, the Commissioner has th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The signatures on the price declarations do not match with that of the Appellant as appearing on his various statements. The finding recorded by the Commissioner against the appellant is therefore totally incorrect, and the appeal needs to be allowed only on this ground. However, since considerable arguments were advanced on the point that the price declarations were not even signed by a representative of the appellant, I proceed to examine that aspect of the matter also. 6. As rightly pointed out by Shri Vipin Jain, Ld Counsel for the Appellant, there is no letter of authorisation available on record to establish that the unnamed signatory of the price declarations was acting as an authorised representative of Jaitex Silk Industries. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.6.1998. I have read this statement and find the incriminatory part of the statement to read as under: "I have read the terms and conditions of the said notifn and in I my token of abiding the said terms the or representative have signed the joint declarations to be filed to the C. EX. deptt. by the independent man-made fabric processors." 7. After seeing the above statement in its entirety I agree with the submission of the Ld Counsel for the Appellant that the alterations made in the appellant's statement dated 22.6.1998 change the entire character and meaning of the above statement. Since none of the declarations on record are signed by the Appellant himself, that part of the appellants statement admitting that he had himself s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be returned be exclusively relying on such oral statements, such statements could easily be thrust upon the persons who were being proceeded against on account of their actions in conflict with the provisions of the 1973 Act. Such statements ought not to be readily believable, unless there is independent corroboration of certain material aspects of the said statements through independent sources. The nature of the corroboration required, would depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, it is apparent that the appellant - A. Tajudeen and his wife T. SahiraBanu at the first opportunity resiled from the statements which are now sought to be relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate, to substantiate the charges leveled against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re from the processor, M/s Sonal Prints as to how and from whom they had received these price declarations purporting to contain the signature of an authorized representative of Jaitex Silk Industries. This was the most obvious line of enquiry that any astute and fair investigating officer should have pursued particularly in the absence of any name, designation or authority letter of the signatory being on record. No such enquiry was done on this material aspect. This failure on the part of the investigating officer, when seen in the context of the material alterations made in the so called admission statement of the appellant impels me to draw an adverse inference against the revenue, Since the joint price declarations were submitted to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
