TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ingots and Runners and risers, falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On the basis of an intelligence that they are engaged in evasion of Central Excise duty by suppression of production and clandestine removal of its final products, a team of officers visited the manufacturing unit on 16-8-2007 and checked the stock of finished goods, raw materials vis-a-vis various records maintained by the party. During the above checking authorised representative of the appellant, Shri Shree Ram Khandelwal was present and witnessed the whole proceedings. On going through the above records pertaining to finished goods, namely, M.S. Ingots, Runners, Risers and various raw materials, it was found that the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;Shri Shree Ram Khandelwal, authorised representative, whose statement was recorded on the spot on 16-8-2007 admitted the fact of shortage of the finished goods and confirmed the payment of the impugned demand. Again, in his statement dated 24-8-2007, he confirmed the contents of his earlier statement and also admitted that the representation dated 20-8-2007, wherein they claimed that they had actually weighed the finished goods on 17-8-2007 and 18-8-2007 and found the stock to be correct was untrue and that when he intimated Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav, Director about the case, he (the Director) advised him to consult Excise Consultant and it was the latter (i.e., the Excise Consultant), who drafted the representation, which they sent to the Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emsp;Ld. Departmental Representative stated that the stock position as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice has been recorded by the authorised representative Shri Shree Ram Khandelwal and the retraction of the statement after more than ten months of the date of seizure cannot be given any credence. 5. Heard both sides. At the very outset, the appellants have contended that in the wake of the retraction affidavits of Shri Shree Ram Khandelwal and the two panchas and the fact that the cross-examination sought was not allowed make the case rather unsustainable. However, the facts, evidence and circumstances have to be appreciated in the proper context. As regards statement of Shri Shree Ram Khandelwal, it is seen that he admitted the shor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admitted that the representation dated 20-8-2007 claiming that the re-weighment was done by them later (which found the stock to be correct) was untruthful and was given on the advice of their Excise Consultant and this fact was conceded by the Director himself in his statement on 31-8-2007 which has never been retracted. Obviously thus, the said retractions are totally unreliable and a clear attempt at manipulation. Such retractions do not take away the evidentiary value of the statements recorded by a gazetted Excise officer as has in effect, been held in terms of paras 7, 9 and 10 of the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CC(ICD), Mumbai v. Shamiluddin Kadar [2010 (259) E.L.T. 44 (Bom.)]. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mr. K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase the Director himself admitted the shortage and paid impugned duty and thus even the need for relying on the statement of Shri Shree Ram Khandelwal does not arise. He also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parle Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1998 (98) E.L.T. 585 (S.C.)] to the effect that affidavits are not to be brushed aside solely on the ground of delay without going into the genuineness. As may be seen the retraction affidavits have been dealt with in the preceding paras and have not been brushed aside without due consideration. The judgment of CESTAT in the case of Rattan Industries Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur [2013 (290) E.L.T. 442 (Tri. - Del.)] was cited to support the contention....