9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards confiscation of finished goods in the case of Appellant No.2, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation, stating that the goods were not accounted for and no documentary evidences with regard to the legitimate possession of the same were produced - Held that: - Since, the Department has taken the divergent views regarding maintenance of records; confiscation of finished goods cannot be upheld in absence of proper substantiation. Thus, the impugned order upholding confiscation of finished goods is not legally sustainable. Further, the documents/records / explanation furnished by the appellant with regard to alleged clandestine removal of goods have not been addressed properly by the authorities below. Without any independent corroborative evidence of the buyer of the goods, mode of transport, method of receipt of sale proceeds etc., the statement recorded from the supervisor Shri Satish Kashyap alone, cannot be relied upon to support clandestine manufacture and clearance of the finished goods - demand withheld Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.54706-54707 & 50752/2014-EX [SM] - A/56698-56700/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 22-9-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods, confirmation of the duty demand and imposition of penalties. The issue arising out of the said notice was adjudicated vide order dated 31.01.2014, wherein in respect of the Appellant No. 1, the finished goods and raw material valued at ₹ 27,84,920/- were confiscated, with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 5,00,000/-. Further, Central Excise Duty demand of ₹ 8,38,671/- was confirmed alongwith interest. Besides, penalties of ₹ 8,38,671/- and ₹ 1,00,000/- were imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 respectively on the Appellant No.1. In respect of the Appellant No.2, seized goods (finished, semi-finished and raw-material) collectively valued at ₹ 39,76,270/- were confiscated under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 25 ibid, with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 6,00,000/-. Further, goods worth ₹ 1,01,350/- were also confiscated, giving the option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 20,000/-. The impugned order also confirmed Central Excise Duty demand of ₹ 17,51,768/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory records, which were produced before the Department on 21.11.2011. He also referred to the letter dated 22.03.2012, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, reflecting the stock position of copper wire in the RG I Register and job work challan in respect of aluminium wire rods supplied on 02.11.2011 for wire drawing; that out of the quantity of 5866 Kgs. of aluminium wire rods, 3688 Kgs. of aluminium wire was drawn. He also submitted that the SCN issued by the Department has accepted the fact that the statutory records were maintained by the Appellant No.2. In this context, he referred to the show cause notice at page 44, wherein considering the stock position reflected in the statutory records, differential duty calculation was arrived at by the Department. Thus, he submitted that the Department cannot hold two divergent views simultaneously i.e. stock position was not recorded in the statutory records and to rely upon the records for adjustment of the weighment error. Accordingly, the ld. Advocate submitted that the impugned order upholding confiscation of finished goods is liable to be set aside. With regard to confirmation of duty demand of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt the confessional statement of Shri Ashok Jain, the Department had not recorded any supporting statement of the workers or supervisor of the factory about manufacture and removal of such huge quantity of goods, which were alleged as removed clandestinely. Further, the Department has not brought on any evidence about the place of recovery of the goods and the person, who authored the entries in the diary recovered on 18.11.2011. I find that except the admission of the appellant in the statement, no other independent and tangible evidence of removal, transportation, means of transportation used, collection of payment etc. is brought on record by the Department. The law is well settled that charge of clandestine manufacture and removal has to be based on some tangible and corroborative evidence. Confessional statement of accused is weak evidence. Whether such statement was voluntary and free from any pressure, must be judged from facts and circumstances of each case. That prudence and justice require that confessional statement should not be made sole ground from proving guilt. Thus, guilt should be established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material/evidence available on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
