TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Commr/(AH)/2005, dated 28-1-2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.) Mumbai. 2. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 11,80,000/- against the appellant, M/s. S.M. Steel Ropes. He has further ordered confiscation of excisable goods seized under Panchnama dated 5-3-2008 valued at Rs. 2,15,490/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He has also ordered for confiscation of Indian currency totalling to Rs. 11,01,300/- seized with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. He has also confirmed the interest liability on the duty confirmed. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 8.00 lakhs on main appellant, M/s. S.M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties. There is no corroborative evidence adduced by the Revenue in support of the contention that the noticee has manufactured and supplied these goods without payment of duty. Therefore, without any corroborative evidences, the confirmation of duty demand on the basis of strength of statement alone is not sustainable in law. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that the appellant was a small scale manufacturer and the clearances made by the appellant were below the exemption limit. Therefore, the appellant was exempt from taking registration under Central Excise laws and maintaining statutory records. It was for these reasons, the appellant did not maintain any statutory records regarding the production and clearances of the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not be faulted and therefore, the adjudicating authority should have confirmed the entire demand of Rs. 22,44,404/- as against Rs. 11.80 lakhs confirmed in the impugned order. As regards the seizure of currency the learned Additional Commissioner states that the currency seized from the premises of the appellant was the sale proceeds of the goods clandestinely removed and sold and therefore, they are liable to confiscation in terms of Section 121 of the Customs Act made applicable to Central Excise Act, vide notification issued under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 As regards the confirmation of duty demand on the strength of stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment of hard cash. Thus the modus operandi adopted by the appellant firm stood clearly admitted in the aforesaid statement of Shri Balkrishna Agarwal, who was the Managing Partner of the appellant firm during the relevant period. None of the statements have been retracted at any point of time. Further, in his statement Shri Balkrishna Agarwal had also made a declaration that the statement was made voluntarily without any force, threat or coercion. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand only on the basis of figures given in the statements of Shri Balkrishna Agarwal. In the absence of delivery challans which were recovered and seized at the time of Panchanama proceedings, he has not taken the computation of demand based on su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. 643 (S.C.) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the statements of the concerned persons are out of their volition and there is no allegation of threat, force, coercion, duress or pressure, such statements can be accepted as a valid piece of evidence. In the light of the above decisions, we are of the considered view that the confirmation of duty demand based on the voluntary statements of the Managing Partner of the appellant firm is sustainable in law. Consequently, the interest and penal liabilities imposed on the appellants would also sustain. 5.2 As regards the confiscation of the currency, the same is permissible, in view of the provisions of Section 121 of the Customs Act read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944....