2014 (5) TMI 869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act" for short}, raising following substantial questions of law for our consideration :            {A} "Whether the CESTAT is correct on holding that the retraction of the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was legal, proper and valid particularly when the affidavit retracting such statements was sent by UPC and not registered post ?"            {B} "Whether the authorities below were correct in holding that the document being affidavit retracting statements not submitted to the adjudicating authorities was valid ?"           {C} Whether the CESTAT and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner (Appeals) are right in holding that the seizure of the goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not valid even though the same were not entered in their records ?"         {I} "Whether CESTAT and the Commissioner (Appeals) are right in dismissing the penal provisions imposed on the employees, director and the broker under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 even though they abetted in evasion of the Central Excise Duty ?" We have heard learned counsel Shri Amar Bhatt for the Revenue. He has fervently urged basing the same on the order in original that the stamp paper on which the retraction is made was purchased prior to the recording of the statement. He also has urged....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter on retracted by all the three persons. Show cause notice issued resulted into order in original confirming the clandestine removal of the fabrics. The material seized were confiscated, allowing the same to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty on the assessee firm and separate penalties on all the three persons above named. In an appeal preferred by the firm as well as individuals, the Commissioner [Appeals] held and observed that there was no evidence to prove the charges of clandestine removal. In his detailed order, Commissioner [Appeals] concluded that none of the charges were proved. The adjudicating authority however in its enthusiasm to decide the issue in favour of the Revenue, had not displaced a judicious....