TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search, Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Prop. was present. It was observed that GHI was engaged in the manufacture of hydraulic door closers under various brand names, such as, "Samrat", "Doorwell", "Alcon", "Turbo", "AAI-JEE". The factory premises of GHI, was built on a plot of area of 100 Sq Yds and its back side was interconnected in the ground floor with plot Nos. 423 & 422. The plot No.422 measured about 85 sq yds and had a big hall and one small room. Back side of ground floor of plot No.423 and entire back side of plot No. 424 consisting of three floors were interconnected with each other to make one full factory premises. The two floors on the front portion of plot No. 424 were used as office. 08 lathe Machines, 10 Drill Machines, 2 Grinder Machines, 3 pressing Machines, 01 patta, 01 Adda and one digital weighing machines were found on the ground floor. First floor comprising of one big hall and four rooms was used for storage of finished/semi-finished goods, and for enamelled painting and drilling of the goods. Eight drill machines, two grinders and one painting machine were installed on that floor. Second floor comprising of one big room was used as storage of finished/semi-finished....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013. The data retrieved indicated the clearance of goods during the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 (upto 21.11.2012) to the tune of Rs. 15,60,36,729/-. 7. Investigation was also made with the various transporters, prominent among them was M/s P.K. Transport Corporation, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Shri Manjit Singh, partner, in his statement, accepted transporting goods from the appellant to different buyers during 2010-11 and 2011-12. He further admitted that the charges were received in cash and that they did not mention their bill numbers in the GRs. 8. After conclusion of investigation, two separate SCNs were issued to the appellants. Vide the SCN dated 17.05.2013, the seized goods were proposed for confiscation and vide the SCN 16.12.2013, duty demand to the extent of Rs. 3,64,33,287/- was proposed. 9. During the course of adjudication proceedings before the lower authority, the appellant sought cross-examination of various witnesses including the Departmental Officers, who participated in the investigation; Shri Manjit Singh, partner, M/s PK Transport Co.; panch witnesses in whose presence the hard disk was opened; as well as many of the buyers. The adjudicating authority pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uired for manufacture of the alleged quantity of clandestine clearances. It was argued that the activity carried-out in GHI was only repair and re-furnishment of old door closers. vi) The department also did not make available all the witnesses for cross-examination. 13. The ld DR, opposed the arguments raised by the appellant. (i) He justified the impugned order. He specifically drew our attention to the search proceedings held at the appellant 's factory on 21.11.2012, during which the officers found that GHI was engaged in the manufacture of hydraulic door closers bearing various brands. It was further observed that the factory premises was built on a plot area of 100 Sq Yds and further that the backside was interconnected on ground floor of plot Nos. 423 & 422. The front portion of plot No.424 was used as office. On the ground floor, various machineries including lathe, drilling machine, grind machine, pressing machine, digital weighing machine etc. were found installed, whereas the first and second floors were used for drilling of goods as well as various operations and storage of goods. He submitted that the entire arrangement was made to camouflage the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15. Heard both sides at length and perused the voluminous record. 16. It is seen that the allegations raised in the SCN and confirmed in the impugned order are based on elaborate investigation carried-out by Revenue. As briefly stated in the above paragraphs, this evidence includes incriminating documents recovered from the factory of the appellant, statements recorded from various persons including the transporter as well as various buyers and also significantly the data printed-out from the electronic devices recovered during the search proceedings. One of the main defences advanced by the appellant is that the data printed-out from the electronic devices should not be relied since the same was printed-out without the presence of Shri Mukhtiar Singh, prop. or anybody else representing the appellant . The other main ground is that in the statement of Shri Mukhtiar Singh and also many buyers have been retracted. Also, it is claimed that the goods, in question, were not manufactured by GHI but by GHMW. The appellant has also sought to differentiate the premises of GHI as well as GHMW. 17. Initially, we take up the issue regarding data printed-out from the electronic devices. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that some of the buyers retracted their original statement at the time of cross-examination before the adjudicating authority. It is the argument of the appellant that all these statements lose their evidentiary value on account of retraction. 20. It is a settled position of law that the original statement does not become null and void only because it has been retracted on a subsequent date. Such retraction is to be assessed by the adjudicating authority in the light of the circumstances of the case and the existence of corroborated evidence. In the present case, we note that Shri Mukhtiar Singh has gone against his original statement, several years after the initial admission. Likewise, the buyers retracting such statements at the time of cross examination by itself will not make their statement inadmissible. Such retraction especially when supported by other evidences is to be ignored as has been held in the following cases: i) KP Abdul Majeed Vs CC Cochin-2014 (309) ELT 671. (Ker.) ii) CC Vs Shamshuddin M.A. Kedar - 2010 (259) ELT 44 (Bom.) iii) CCE Vs Praveen Kumar & Co.-2015 (328) ELT-220 (T.Del.) Similarly views have been taken by the Tribu....