TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er based decorated laminated sheets worth Rs. 13,90,300/- involving Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,43,201/-. The officers resumed statutory records, one CPU and one pen drive and some loose papers from the factory premises under a Panchnama. However during investigation nothing incriminating was found. 2.2. The officers got the lock of the residential premises of Rohit Vasistha, Authorised Signatory (as he was not available) opened by breaking it before the panch witnesses and resumed one laptop, copies of parallel invoices, bilties (G.R) and some loose papers. After recording statements of Rohit Vasistha, Narender Kumar Khema (Director) and Manoj Kumar Choudhary Supervisor of the Appellant, a show cause notice dated 26.02.2013 was issued demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 96,32,692/- and for imposing penalties on all the three Appellants. 3. The learned Commissioner, vide the impugned Order dated 19/25.03.2014 has confirmed the demand and contest and imposed penalties holding that there are sufficient evidences to hold that appellants were involved in clandestine removal of the goods and the appellants have failed to adduce any documentary evidence in sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hortage of finished goods, on stock verification. (2) Rs. 5,35,881/- - On the basis of parallel invoices resumed from residence of Rohit Vasistha. (3) Rs. 53,30,905/- - On the basis of loose slips recovered from the residence of Rohit Vasistha showing production and stock position. (4) Rs. 18,38,327/- - On the basis of loose slips resumed from the residence of Rohit Vasisthashowing cash receipts. (5) Rs. 17,84,378/- - On the basis of buyers' orders resumed from the residence of Rohit Vasistha. 5.1 The learned Advocate submitted that there was no shortage of the finished goods as no physical verification was possible within a short time of 9-10 hours, the period officers were present in the factory premises. There were 7 sizes of laminates, which could not have been verified by the officers in the given time. Mere mention in the Panchnama that the verification was satisfactory, does not take away the fact of impossibility of stock verification physically. The Department has not brought on record any document to prove physical verification of finished goods. 5.2 The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the department has not made any enquiry from the buyers of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....205 (P&H). 6.1 The learned Advocate submitted that mere admission by employee/director is not sufficient to prove the charge of clandestine removal. The Tribunal has held in Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Raipur, 2016 (335) ELT 297 that though confessional statement may be starting point of investigation, in the absence of other evidence indicating clandestine removal, the same cannot be made the sole basis for levelling charges against the assessee. 7 The learned Authorized Representative supported the impugned Order and emphasized that the director, supervisor and authorized signatory of the Appellant company have admitted the clandestine sale without payment of duty. Moreover, the authorized signatory, in his letter dated 12.08.2011 addressed to the Commissioner, had complained that he had been threatened by the MD and other persons on 10.08.2011. 7.1 The learned Advocate countered this by contending that no where said letter dated 12.08.2011 has been relied upon in show cause notice nor the copy of the same has been provided to the Appellant. On the other hand, Rohit Vasishta has retracted his all the three statements, on the very next day by swearing affidavit, whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court has also observed in Vinod Solanki Vs U.O.I., 2009 (233) ELT 157 (S.C.) that "it is a trite law that evidences brought on record by confession which stood retracted must be substantially corroborated by other independent and cogent evidences..." In the present matter, the Revenue has not brought on record any independent evidence to support the retracted statements. Consequently no reliance can be placed on such statements to support the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant Company. 10 We also find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate that none of the buyers whose name appeared on the copies of alleged parallel invoices recovered from the residential premises have been contacted to determine the fact of receipt of quantity mentioned in the invoices. No efforts seem to have been made by the officers to ascertain the facts from transport owner/truck drivers about removal of goods without invoices and/or return of invoices to the Appellant company. In-fact, there was no enquiry or verification regarding actual manufacture, its transportation and receipt of cash by the Appellant Company. After recovery of docume....