2018 (10) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the CESTAT, South Zonal Branch, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.E/436-438/2002 raising the purported questions of law in the present case. 3. The suggested questions of law arising in the above matter are quoted here below for ready reference : "(i) Whether, the order of the Tribunal is correct in holding that there was no proper investigation with regard to fraud and evasion which is totally contrary to the voluminous evidence and the findings recorded by the Commissioner who has given cogent reasons in support of the said conclusions ? (ii) Whether, the order of the Tribunal is right in not appreciating and considering the consistency with reference to the facts deposed by three independent persons of the company in the context of docum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reel hank yarn was accounted as plain reel hank yarn. No doubt, this suspicion of the Department is aroused when the goods were not properly accounted. But suspicion however, well founded may be, cannot take the place of clear evidence especially when huge duty liability is thrust on the appellants for a period of nearly four years. However, the Department tries to build up the case on the basis of the statements recorded from Shri. Kotrappa and Ethindran. Even immediately after the statements were recorded, they have been retracted. When the statements have been retracted immediately, it is clear that they are not voluntary. On the basis of the statements which are not voluntary, we cannot hold that the conclusion of the adjudicating au....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- 2001 (133) E: LT 2179 Tri. Del.) that - "The non-accountal of goods in RGI Register does not, ipso facto, indicate intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty." Hence, the seized goods are not liable to confiscation.   7. In view of the above findings, we set aside the Order-in-Original and allow the appeals." 5. Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises under Sec. 35-G of the Central Excise Act, requiring our consideration as the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal appear to be in order, based on relevant evidence and the Tribunal has rightly held that the additional excise duty could not be imposed merely on account of assump....