TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als i.e. ship breaking raw materials to M/s. Jaidev Alloys Pvt. Limited. As a result of intelligence that M/s. Jaidev Alloys Pvt. Limited are procuring ship breaking raw materials from M/s. Bansal Brothers and M/s. Gujarat Impex Labs Pvt. Limited under the cover of invoices issued by the two suppliers but instead of receiving the goods in their factory for manufacture of MS Ingots, the same are being diverted to their two sister units M/s. Gujarat Steels Pvt. Limited and M/s. Sanjay Ispat Pvt. Limited, who are using the same in the manufacture of CTD Bars. Such CTD Bars being manufactured by these two units are being cleared by them clandestinely without payment of duty. On the other hand M/s. Jaidev Alloys Pvt. Limited is availing the benefit of modvat credit in respect of the said raw materials shown to have been received by them. As a result, the factory premises of M/s. Gujarat Steels Pvt. Limited was visited by the officers on 13/14.11.2003, who conducted various checks and verifications. The raw materials found in the said premises were in the form of MS Plates or cut plates or plate cutting. As a result of verifications of the final product i.e. CTD Bars, an excess quantity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eaking scrap. Further, weighment of the scrap was carried out on all the three days and shortages in the stock were detected. Statement of Shri Anil Chauhan, Accountant of the said unit was recorded wherein, he deposed that M/s. Jaidev Alloys Pvt. Limited was engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots and are using various types and quantities of metal scrap. He also disclosed that their sister units are engaged in the manufacture of CTD Bars as well as round bars and the ship breaking scrap in the shape of iron and steel plates are being used by them. He also clarified that all the three manufacturers are procuring the scrap from M/s. Bansal Brothers and M/s. Gujarat Impex Labs Pvt. Limited. Statement of Shri Vikas Arya, Director of M/s. Jaidev Alloys Pvt. Limited as also M/s. Gujarat Steels Pvt. Limited and M/s. Sanjay Ispat Pvt. Limited, was recorded, wherein he submitted that all the three units are maintaining the records of various raw materials received from various suppliers and he does not agree with the statement of the representative of other two firms indicating that the ship breaking material shown to have been received by M/s. Jaidev Alloys Pvt. Limited was in fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filed by the Revenue. 9. The Commissioner, while adjudicating the said show cause notice has doubted the very fact of actual weighment of the raw material, thus dismissing the Revenue s stand of shortages of the same. He has observed that total of 34 trips per hour shown to have been made from the place of loading of the scrap to the weighment bridge thereby making one trip every two minutes, which seems to be not only impracticable but also impossible. Accordingly, he has doubted the genuineness of the weighment of the raw materials and he held that Panchnama drawn cannot be held to be conclusive and can be made basis for the present proceedings. The above observations made by the Commissioner stands challenged by the Revenue in their memo of appeal by referring to the fact that it was not only three truck trailers but in total eleven numbers tractor trailers with hydraulic jack were used weighment purpose. The proceedings reflected in the Panchnama were accepted by Shri Anil Chauhan, Accountant as also by Shri Vikas Arya, Director. As such, the above findings of the Commissioner are not appropriate. We find that the said fact may not be of any relevance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o time, such confessional statement cannot take precedence over the documentary evidence. He has also observed that such statements stands retracted by the deponents by sworn in affidavit and are not corroborated by any other independent evidence. On the other hand, it is the Revenue s stands that such retraction of statements should not affect the evidentiary value of such statements. They have also referred to certain decisions laying down that such statements given before the Central Excise officers are admissible in evidence and the mere fact of retraction, cannot take away the evidentiary value of the same. 12. We note that evidentiary value of the confessional statement has to be adjudged in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances present in each and every case. The fact of retraction in some cases may affect their evidentiary value, whereas in the other the same may not. In the present case, the evidentiary value of the same has to be adjudged keeping in view the documentary evidences available on record. Admittedly, the statutory records speak louder than the oral evidences. The Revenue has not been able to show any evidence to reflect upon the fact that v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he has observed that not even single transporter has been found. He has observed that the failure on the part of the Revenue to find any supplier of scrap for a continuous period of three years, during which M/s. Jaidev Alloys Pvt. Limited would have procured such a huge quantum of revenue running in thousands of tons, valued at crores of rupees, is indicative of the allegation being assumptive in nature. As such, he has rejected the same by observing that in the absence of any corroborative evidence, such presumptions cannot be made the base for making a charge of diversion of huge quantity of raw material for continuous period of four years and substituting the same with market scrap. The Revenue in their memo of appeal has not advanced any ground to challenge the above findings of the adjudicating authority. Admittedly, there is no evidence locating any supplier or transporter of such a huge material. The assessees have accounted for all the raw materials in their statutory records and have shown the production of MS Ingots from the same. No evidence worth mentioning stands produced by the Revenue to rebut the entries made in the statutory records. We also take note of ....