Appeal Allowed: Evidence Inadmissible, Procedural Deficiencies, Clandestine Removal Charge Unproven

The Tribunal held that the appellant's statement was inadmissible as evidence due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, supported by legal precedents and judicial pronouncements from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Additionally, the evidence presented by the Revenue was insufficient to prove clandestine removal, as it did not follow prescribed procedures and lacked corroborative evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the charge of clandestine removal against the appellant was deemed unproven.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of appellant's statement as evidence under Section 9D of the Act.
2. Proof of clandestine removal based on appellant's statements.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant contested the admissibility of their statement as evidence, citing the provisions of Section 9D of the Act. The appellant argued that the statements were retracted and not supported by examination-in-chief, as required by law. Referring to precedents like the case of Kuber Tobacco India Limited, the appellant emphasized the necessity of following procedural requirements for statement admissibility. The Tribunal concurred, highlighting that examination-in-chief was not conducted, rendering the statements inadmissible based on legal precedents. The appellant's argument was supported by judicial pronouncements from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, further reinforcing the inadmissibility of the statements.

Issue 2:
Regarding the charge of clandestine removal, the Revenue relied on 7 Kucha Slips and a recovered paper as evidence. However, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove clandestine removal. Citing guidelines from the case of Arya Fibers Limited, the Tribunal outlined the fundamental criteria for establishing clandestine manufacture and clearance. Since the Revenue failed to follow the prescribed procedure and lacked corroborative evidence, the charge of clandestine removal against the appellant was deemed unproven. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH highlights the legal arguments presented by both parties, the application of relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's findings on each issue raised in the case.

---