TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty from their manufacturers. One of the suppliers to RIPL is the main appellant, viz. Omsairam Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. In these facts, statements of the directors of the appellant were recorded and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand duty on the goods supplied to RIPL without cover of central excise invoice on the basis of the records/pen-drives recovered from the possession of RIPL. The adjudication took place, duty was demanded along with interest and penalties on the main appellant and the co-appellants were also imposed. 3. Today, when the matter was listed for hearing the stay applications, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the adjudication order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, sought intervention of this Tribunal to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the investigation has been conducted at the premises of RIPL, a show cause notice was issued to them, the said show cause notice is pending for adjudication. Therefore, the impugned order was not required to be passed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his case, the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs. 1.2 crores during the course of investigation, the same is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalties, we have taken up the appeals themselves for disposal. 8. In this case, the investigation was conducted at the premises of RIPL and certain documents and pen-drives were recovered in their custody. Thereafter statements of the directors of RIPL and their employees were recorded. On the basis of this investigation, the search was made at the premises of the appellant. Nothing incriminating documents were found but statements of the directors were recorded and on the basis of the statements of the directors, the statements of the directors of RIPL and their employees and the documents recovered in the custody of RIPL, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties on the appellant and the co-appellants. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the adjudication against RIPL is still pending and the same is having bearing on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is duty evasion by the present applicant also. It was thereafter, after more than three months, that the statement of the directors of the present applicant were recorded on 14.9.2011 onwards. It is observed that the statements of the directors of the applicant-company were recorded on 14.9.2011, 28.11.2011, 31.5.2012, 1.6.2012, 31.7.2012 and 15.1.2013. First of all, none of these statements have ever been retracted. Further, in the statements both the directors have specifically admitted clandestine clearance of MS ingots and billets without payment of duty to Rutuja Ispat. The admission included precise quantity, value etc. Both the directors were shown the printouts of the pen-drives taken at the time of search as also those received from CFSL, Hyderabad. These printouts indicated precise details about the clearances of the goods which included exact weight, rate prevailing at that date, total amount, vehicle registration number through which the said goods have been transported from the applicant's unit to Rutuja Ispat. These statements were shown to the applicant who, after going through these statements, have identified the clandestine clearances and submitted the detaile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which cannot be relied upon within the meaning of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act excepting for the specific purposes of Sections 27 and 32 of the Evidence Act. Barring the above circumstances under which a confession statement has been given with the Police Officer or in the presence of the Police Officer in custody, no other confession made before any authority or prosecuting officials could be viewed with suspicion and they have enormous evidentiary value and conviction could be based on the evidence of such confession statement alone as pronounced in various decisions of the Apex Court. Even law does not admit a refractory version of the confession made before the Customs Officer. In Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India & Others , it is held that in an unauthorised import of gold - confession by accused before the Customs Officers that though retracted is admissible and hinds the accused since Customs Officers are not Police Officers and there is also no contravention of the principles of natural justice. It is further held that the 'confession before the Customs Officer is admission and retraction cannot be accepted.' 'Where there is confession no need to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certain job workers, the job workers in turn denied having done any such job work and under those circumstances, the Tribunal has taken a view that cross-examination is essential. In the present case the cross-examination of the six persons asked for does not. prejudicially affect the applicants as they themselves have admitted the correctness of the clandestine clearances and duty evasion. In fact the printouts give the details of even the transport vehicles which, admittedly, were owned by the directors of the applicant-company and they have also admitted using those vehicles for the said purpose. 20. The learned counsel for the applicants has made a plea that the case should have been adjudicated after the adjudication of the case against Rutuja Ispat Pvt. Ltd. I do not find any force in the said argument. The two show cause notices are different. There may be certain common documents but that does not imply that the case of the applicants should be decided later on. On the contrary, the applicants' clandestine clearance of the MS ingots/billets has only led to manufacture of TMT bars and their clandestine clearance. In view of this position, there is no substance in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, whether the appeals should be remanded after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit. OR The main applicant should be asked to deposit the entire amount of duty along with interest for the reasons elaborated in paras 12 to 21 above and applicant No. 2 and 3, 50% of the penalty imposed, as held by Member (Technical) and after the compliance of the said stay order, the matter to be heard on merit." 27. I am of the opinion that first appeal is a matter of right under the Constitution of India and the same has been also provided under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. In Revenue legislations, some minimum pre-deposit is prescribed for admission of the first appeal in most of the Taxation Statutes of the Central Government and/or the State Governments. However, under the Central Excise Act, Section 35F provides for depositing the adjudicated amount of disputed duty in respect of the goods, which are not in the control of the Central Excise authorities or any penalty levied under the Act pending the appeal. Further discretion has been provided to the appellate authority including the Tribunal that such deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied, if would ca....