Penalty set aside under r.26 as statements inadmissible under s.9D; no evidence of passing irregular CENVAT credit

CESTAT KOLKATA - AT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under r.26, Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant passed on irregular CENVAT credit: the list of fictitious transport vehicles did not include any used by the appellant, and the Department's case rested on statements that were not tested as required by s.9D, Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently those statements were inadmissible and could not sustain the penalty.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether statements recorded under section 14 during investigation, which were not tested before the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 9D(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are admissible and can be relied upon to impose penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. Whether there is admissible evidence on record to sustain the conclusion that the appellant issued fake invoices or passed on irregular CENVAT credit to the buyer, such as to attract penalty under Rule 26.

3. Whether reliance solely on investigation statements (without compliance with Section 9D) and on generalized investigative findings (e.g., list of fictitious transportations or non-existent suppliers) suffices to establish mens rea or culpability required for imposition of Rule 26 penalty on a supplier alleged to have issued fake invoices.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 14 without compliance with Section 9D(1)(b)

Legal framework: Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes when statements recorded under section 14 (before a gazetted officer during inquiry/investigation) are relevant in adjudication or prosecution: (a) specific circumstances in s.9D(1)(a), or (b) if (a) is not applicable, only after the person who gave the statement is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority forms an opinion that the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice (s.9D(1)(b)); s.9D(2) mandates application of s.9D(1).

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on multiple authorities treating s.9D as mandatory: Tribunal, Chennai (Geetham Steels), Principal Bench CESTAT (Surya Wires), Punjab & Haryana High Court (Ambika International, Jindal Drugs), Chhattisgarh High Court (Hi Tech Abrasives), Delhi High Court (Its My Name / Additional Director General), and Tribunal decisions (Drolia Electrosteel). These decisions consistently hold that statements recorded during investigation acquire relevance in adjudication only after the procedure of s.9D(1)(b) is complied with, unless s.9D(1)(a) applies.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the impugned findings and noted that the department's case rested on statements recorded from investigative witnesses (including the director and an intermediary). No evidence existed that any s.9D(1)(a) circumstance applied, and the adjudicating authority did not examine the deponents as witnesses nor record an opinion admitting those statements under s.9D(1)(b). The Tribunal explained the legislative rationale: statements recorded during inquiry/investigation may be coerced; s.9D(1)(b) is a safeguard requiring in-court/adjudicatory testing (examination and possible cross-examination) before those statements can be treated as substantive evidence.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Non-compliance with Section 9D(1)(b) renders statements recorded under section 14 inadmissible for proving the truth of their contents in adjudication (absent s.9D(1)(a)). Obiter - Explanatory remarks on the potential for coercion and the sequential procedure of examination, cross-examination, and re-examination in evidence law supporting the mandatory nature of s.9D.

Conclusion: The statements relied upon by the Department, not tested in terms of Section 9D, are irrelevant and inadmissible for proving the alleged facts; they cannot sustain findings against the appellant.

Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence to establish issuance of fake invoices or passing of irregular CENVAT credit attracting Rule 26 penalty

Legal framework: Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed for acts/omissions such as issuance of fake invoices or abetting irregular availment/utilization of CENVAT credit; imposition requires admissible evidence establishing the wrongdoing and culpability.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions holding that findings based solely on untested investigation statements or generalized investigative material (e.g., lists of fictitious transportations) are inadequate to establish issuance of fake invoices or taint inputs without documentary identification of the tainted invoices.

Interpretation and reasoning: The adjudicating authority's order alleged issuance of fake invoices and procurement of forged invoices from named dealers. On analysis, the Tribunal found no specific invoice or document identified and relied upon to prove that the appellant issued fake invoices or that inputs taken by the appellant were tainted. The list of fictitious transportations did not include vehicles used by the appellant; there was no dispute regarding actual receipt by the buyer of goods from the appellant (entry gate logs/time stamps existed). The Department's case was founded on investigative statements not admitted under s.9D and on generalized investigative findings; hence the causal chain to establish irregular credit passed by the appellant was missing.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Absent admissible evidence identifying specific tainted invoices or proving non-supply/non-receipt, a finding that a supplier issued fake invoices and thereby passed on irregular credit cannot be sustained. Obiter - Observations that logs of vehicle entries and absence of the appellant's vehicles from the list of fictitious transportations weaken allegations of bogus supply.

Conclusion: There is no admissible evidence on record to prove that the appellant issued fake invoices or passed on irregular CENVAT credit to the buyer; the Rule 26 penalty cannot be sustained on the material placed.

Issue 3: Reliance on investigatory inferences (non-existent suppliers, fictitious transport) and confessional or implicatory statements for establishing culpability

Legal framework: Adjudicatory reliance on investigative inferences and confessional statements is circumscribed by admissibility rules (Section 9D) and by the requirement that documentary or corroborative material be identified to substantiate allegations; mere investigative suspicion or generalized findings are insufficient.

Precedent treatment: Authorities cited (Ambika International, Its My Name, Hi Tech Abrasives, Drolia Electrosteel, Surya Wires) emphasize that investigative statements require procedural testing before admission and that reliance on such statements in absence of s.9D compliance is impermissible; courts/tribunals have repeatedly held that failure to comply with s.9D is fatal to reliance on those statements.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Department's narrative linking the appellant to a network of fictitious suppliers and transportations was built on statements that were not admitted under s.9D and on a generalized investigatory matrix. The adjudicating authority did not point to any document or invoice specifically proved to be fake or any instance where the appellant's supplies were shown to be non-existent. The director's recorded admission was not tested before the adjudicating authority in the manner mandated by s.9D.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Investigatory inferences and confessional/implicatory statements, unless admitted according to statutory procedure and corroborated by identifiable documentary evidence, cannot form the basis for penalty under Rule 26. Obiter - Discussion of the investigatory rationale for s.9D and analogies to the sequential testing of evidence under the Evidence Act.

Conclusion: The Department's reliance on untested investigative statements and generalized investigatory findings was legally impermissible; such material cannot establish the culpability necessary for Rule 26 penalty.

Final Conclusion and Disposition (Court's operative finding)

The Court held that (i) statements recorded during investigation were not admitted in evidence in accordance with Section 9D and hence were inadmissible; (ii) there was no admissible/documentary evidence identifying any fake invoices or proving that the appellant passed on irregular CENVAT credit; and (iii) consequently the penalty under Rule 26 was unsustainable and was set aside. (Ratio: mandatory compliance with Section 9D is a precondition to reliance on investigative statements in adjudication; absence of admissible evidence disproves imposition of Rule 26 penalty.)

---