TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and had committed a substantial error of law in not appreciating that what was admitted in the statement recorded u/s 14 of the Act need not be proved by further corroborative evidence to support the illicit and clandestine removal of excisable goods? [b] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and had committed a substantial error of law in holding that there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the Adjudicating Authority in dropping the demand on the admission of clandestine removal illicitly of excisable goods and evasion of Central Excise duty? [c] Whether, in the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mounting to Rs. 4,30,275/- should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Act, as well as, as to why mandatory penalty and penal interest should not be imposed. 3. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the respondent filed reply and after considering the explanation given by the respondent, the adjudicating authority dropped the demand of duty. Against the order of the adjudicating authority, revenue preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order made by the adjudicating authority. Revenue preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, but did not succeed. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue vehemently assailed the impugned order, and submitted that once it had been admitted in a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hrough the panchnama (Annexure "B"), it appeared that the assessee had cleared the disputed lot numbers of fabrics of man made fabrics to different parties on payment of central excise with valid central excise invoices. He, accordingly, found that the shortage of fabrics mentioned in the panchnama was not acceptable. According to the adjudicating authority, it appeared that the disputed man made fabric was actually available in the said factory premises of the assessee, hence, the allegation made in the show cause notice that the assessee had illicitly cleared the fabrics without payment of duty and without maintaining the central excise records and without following proper central excise procedures, was not sustainable. It was further fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that the only evidence in respect of clandestine removal against the assessee was in the nature of the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Act, which had been subsequently retracted. Before the adjudicating authority, the respondent assessee had led evidence to establish that the charge of clandestine removal is not made out and that there was no shortage of material as recorded in the panchnama which was accepted by the adjudicating authority. The findings of the adjudicating authority stand confirmed by both the appellate authorities. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out any evidence to the contrary, in support of the case of the revenue as regards shortage of material or clandestine removal of good....