Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demands of central excise duty, interest and penalty for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal could be sustained on the basis of third-party handwritten ledgers, computerised extracts and retracted statements without corroborative evidence and without producing the witnesses for cross-examination.
Analysis: The appeal turned on the evidentiary value of the documents recovered from a third party and the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ledgers relied upon were not legible, the computerised charts were prepared from them, and the witnesses whose statements explained those entries were not made available for cross-examination. The statements were also retracted. The documents recovered from the appellant's premises were unsigned and were never properly confronted. In the absence of supporting evidence such as proof of raw material procurement, transport, electricity consumption, sale proceeds, buyers or flow back of funds, the allegations of clandestine removal were not proved.
Conclusion: The demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.