9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o bring any corroborative evidence on record except the statement recorded during the course of investigation. Merely admission by way of statement without corroborative evidence cannot result to prove the allegation of clandestine removal of goods - on the said basis demand cannot be confirmed. As held by this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I, M/S KUBER TOBACCO INDIA LTD, SHRI DHANPAT SINGHEE, DIRECTOR, SHRI CHATAR SINGH BAID, SHRI VIKAS MALU VERSUS M/S KUBER TOBACCO INDIA LTD, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I [ 2016 (4) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it has been held that the statement recorded during the course of investigation is to be testified by the adjudicating authority in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ways, the transporter. During the course of search in the premises of M/s Shree Ganesh Roadways certain GRs were resumed and the statements were recorded. Further, investigation was conducted in the factory premises of the main appellant. It was alleged by the Revenue that one M/s Lauls Limited was manufacturing M.S. Ingots and sending the said goods through transporter and one M/s Kanika Strips were issuing invoices who is a trader in the name of M/s Capital Ispat Limited, the goods have been cleared clandestinely without payment of duty by M/s Lauls Limited. Therefore, it was alleged that appellant have received the inputs manufactured by M/s Lauls Limited without any cover of invoice of manufacturer and without payment of duty and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without any corroborative evidence, therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue opposes the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that the Director in his statement has admitted duty liability arisen out of the above activity and requested for time to deposit the amount. Moreover, the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not retracted by any person. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs. Union of India 1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC) held that confessional statement made before the Excise officer is admissible but in the given case no statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded during the course of investigation is to be testified by the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and thereafter same is allowed to be cross examined to the assessee. But none of the said act has been done by the adjudicating authority in this case. Therefore, in the light of Kuber Tobacco (supra) the statements which are the basis for alleged clandestine manufacture are not sustainable. Moreover, Revenue has not made any efforts to prove that how the appellant has used inputs and how the final finished goods has been cleared clandestinely. In the absence of these corroborative evidence, the case of the Revenue unproved. 8. Moreover, on the basis of similar investigation in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
