Chairman's statement lacks evidentiary value; appeal dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal found a small discrepancy in stock but no evidence supporting the entire production being liable to duty. The Chairman's voluntary statement did not hold higher evidentiary value than statutory records. The Court held that the evidence, including the Chairman's statement, did not support the allegations. Admissions made by a party could be explained by precedence to statutory records showing contrary facts. No substantive question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves challenges u/s 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding discrepancies in stock, production classification, duty liability, and evidentiary value of a voluntary statement made by the Chairman of the party.

Discrepancies in Stock and Production Classification:
The Tribunal found a small discrepancy in stock but no evidence supporting the allegation that the entire production of the assessee was liable to duty. The discrepancy in one consignment was not the basis to conclude that the entire production was excisable. The assessee had informed the revenue about machinery installation for hank yarn production, and the correctness of records was certified by Revenue Officers. The revenue failed to provide material evidence after verification with the purchaser, and the Chairman's statement did not hold higher evidentiary value than statutory records.

Evidentiary Value of Chairman's Statement:
The revenue claimed that the Chairman's voluntary and confessional statement, recorded u/s 14 of the Central Excise Act, should be given importance. However, the Court held that the available evidence, including the Chairman's statement, did not support the allegations against the assessee. It was established that the allegations were against the statutory record, and admissions made by a party could be explained by precedence to statutory records showing contrary facts. Therefore, no interference by the Court was warranted, and no substantive question of law arose for adjudication. The appeal was dismissed.

---