2014 (5) TMI 606

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt} dated 15th July 2013, Revenue has challenged the same in both these Tax Appeals, raising the following substantial questions of law for our consideration :- {a} "Whether the CESTAT, while passing Order No. A/1081710820/WZB/AHD/2013 dated 15.07.2013, was correct in holding that there is no evidence of illicit clearance available despite holding that there are suspicion of illicit clearance and the Department proved the entire modus of illicit clearance on sample basis?" {b} Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, while passing Order No. A/108171820/ WZB/ AHD/2013 dated 15.07.2013, was correct in holding that evidences collected by Departments are admissible evidences only for one offence while the same set of ev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M/s. Saakeen Alloys Private Limited were recovered. Statement of one Mr. Mohammed Altaf Alambhai Kapadia connected with Messrs. Saakeen Alloys Private Limited was recorded on 23rd November 2007 which was, within a short time, retracted. Statement also was recorded of the proprietor of M/s. Sunrise Enterprises where he agreed to be the main supplier of Messrs. Saakeen Alloys Private Limited. This statement too was retracted very soon. Likewise, statements of proprietor of M/s. Khodiyar Transport Service, Mahesana and Excise Manager of Messrs. Saakeen Alloys Private Limited were recorded and on the basis of pendrive seized, panchnama and other documents were drawn. On the basis of entire material, show cause notice was issued by the Commissi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of power like electricity, seizure of cash, etc., the Tribunal noted and held that there was nothing to bank upon except the bare confessional statements of the proprietor and of some of the persons connected with the manufacturing activities and such statements were retracted within no time of their recording. The Tribunal also noted the fact that the requisite opportunity of cross examination was also not made available so as to bring to the fore the true picture and therefore, it concluded against the Revenue observing that not permitting the cross examination of a person incharge of records of M/s. Sunrise Enterprises and absence of other cogent and positive evidences, would not permit it to sustain the demand of Rs. 1.85 Crores rais....