Excise duty demand quashed as untested third-party statements under Section 9D lack evidence of clandestine removals

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of central excise duty, interest, and penalties on the appellant-company and its directors. The Tribunal held that the alleged clandestine removals were based solely on private documents forwarded by the Commercial Tax office and on statements of transporters and a purchaser, which were not tested as required under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. As these statements lacked evidentiary value and there was no corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance, the demand and penalties were found unsustainable.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether statements recorded during investigation under Section 14 (or equivalent) can be relied upon in adjudication proceedings without following the procedure mandated by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act.

2. Whether private documents/photocopies and statements from third parties (transporters, alleged buyers) constitute sufficient and admissible evidence to establish clandestine manufacture and/or clandestine clearance for imposition of central excise duty.

3. Whether central excise duty demands and penalties imposed on the corporate assessee and personal penalties on its directors are sustainable in absence of cogent corroborative evidence proving clandestine clearances and involvement of the directors.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Admissibility and evidentiary value of statements recorded during investigation (Section 9D)

Legal framework: Section 9D (and its application to adjudication proceedings via sub-section (2)) prescribes conditions under which statements recorded before Gazetted Central Excise officers become relevant evidence: (a) specified exceptions (dead/unavailable/incapable/kept away/unreasonable delay) or (b) the statement-maker must be examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority must form a reasoned opinion that the statement should be admitted in the interests of justice.

Precedent treatment: The Court follows and applies established High Court and Tribunal authorities holding Section 9D mandatory in adjudication proceedings and requiring either invocation of clause (a) with a reasoned order or compliance with clause (b) (examination-in-chief before adjudicator and recorded opinion) before reliance on such statements.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order relied on statements recorded during investigation without testing them as mandated by Section 9D. The reasoning emphasises that such statements, if relied upon to prove truth of facts, must be either shown to fall within clause (a) or be formally admitted in evidence after examination before the adjudicator and allowing the assessee opportunity to cross-examine. Absent compliance, the statements lack evidentiary value for proving allegations in adjudication.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 9D's procedure is mandatory in adjudication; reliance on investigation statements without compliance vitiates adjudication. Obiter - Reference to underlying reasons (risk of coercion; need to preserve principles of evidence) supports the ratio but reiterates established doctrine.

Conclusions: Statements recorded during investigation were not admitted in evidence as required; their untested reliance renders them inadmissible for proving clandestine clearances in the present proceedings.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Sufficiency and nature of documentary evidence (private documents/photocopies) and corroboration required to establish clandestine manufacture/clearance

Legal framework: Allegations of clandestine manufacture/clearance require cogent, corroborative, tangible evidence - not mere inferences, assumptions or unauthenticated internal/private records. Relevant indicia include unexplained excess production, unaccounted raw material purchases, unexplained electricity consumption, discovery/transportation of unaccounted finished goods, receipt of sale proceeds, and corroborative statements supported by documentary proof.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relies on established decisions which require corroboration beyond private/internal records or untested statements; tribunals and High Courts have set out illustrative criteria that Revenue must satisfy to sustain clandestine removal demands.

Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned adjudication was founded principally on private/photocopied documents forwarded by the Commercial Taxes Department and on third-party statements. The Court examined sample documents and found they do not prima facie indicate clandestine clearance. Given the lack of legible originals, absence of corroborative material (no proof of excess raw material purchase, no evidence of excess electricity consumption, no verified transport documentation, no bank/receipt trail), and the untested nature of third-party statements, the evidence falls short of the threshold necessary to establish clandestine clearances.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Central excise demands for clandestine clearance cannot be sustained on mere photocopies, private registers or uncorroborated statements; corroborative, tangible evidence is mandatory. Obiter - Enumeration of typical corroborative indicia is explanatory guidance consistent with prior jurisprudence.

Conclusions: The documentary material and photocopies relied upon are insufficient and not properly authenticated/legible; in the absence of corroborative evidence the allegation of clandestine clearance cannot be sustained and demands based thereon must be set aside.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Liability and penalty on corporate assessee and personal penalties on directors

Legal framework: Imposition of penalty under Central Excise law requires proof of culpability-either direct involvement or attribution of the wrongful conduct to the corporate entity or its officers. Penalties on directors require evidentiary establishment of their participation or knowledge of the alleged contraventions.

Precedent treatment: Courts and Tribunals have consistently held that penalties cannot rest on unsubstiantiated demands; if the foundational demand is unsustainable for lack of evidence, consequential penalties also fail. Personal penalties on directors require independent evidence of involvement.

Interpretation and reasoning: Having concluded that the demand for duty based on clandestine clearance is unsubstantiated (Issues 1-2), the Court examined whether the Department produced evidence linking the directors to any clandestine activity. No such evidence was adduced; statements relied upon were inadmissible/uncorroborated. Consequently, both the corporate penalty and personal penalties lack foundation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalties (corporate and personal) premised on unsustainable duty demands or on inadmissible/uncorroborated evidence are not sustainable. Obiter - Emphasis that departmental inability to produce evidence of directors' involvement precludes imposition of personal penalties.

Conclusions: Penalties imposed on the assessee and on the directors are set aside for want of evidence; consequential relief follows.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

The adjudicating authority's reliance on untested statements recorded during investigation and on private/photocopied documents without provision of legible originals or corroborative evidence contravened the mandatory evidentiary requirements under Section 9D and established jurisprudence on clandestine clearances. The central excise duty demands and all penalties confirmed in the impugned order are set aside for lack of admissible and corroborative evidence; appeals are allowed with consequential relief as per law.

---