TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recorded u/ s 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not admissible in evidence since the same did not bear the signatures of the officials who recorded the statements despite the fact that the same noticees had confirmed their statements in their subsequent statements also recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944? B. Whether the learned Tribunal did not err in holding that the charge of clandestine removal needed to be set aside since the same was based on statements which did not bear the signatures of the officers recording those statements despite the fact that the charge of clandestine removal was sustainable in view of the various other corroborative and independent evidences collected during the course of investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s referred as above by the noticees, it is seen that seven out of the thirteen statements referred as above by the noticees indicate that these have been recorded before a Central Excise officer. Out of the remaining statements also it is observed that statement dated 7- 1-10 of Shri Pawan Kumar Jain which was in response to the summons dated 14-12-09 has been seen and admitted again in the statement dated 12-04- 2010 (which has been tendered before a Central Excise officer). Similarly vide letter dated 31- 08-20 l 0 addressed to the Superintendent Central Excise Delhi- I, Shri Sunil Kathuria has stated that he has erroneously mentioned the date as 26-02-2010 and that it should be read as 26-03-2010. He has nowhere mentioned in that letter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been retracted, the Court must bear in mind the attending circumstances which would include the time of retraction, the nature thereof, the manner in which such retraction has been made and other relevant factors. Law does not say that the accused has to prove that retraction of statement made by him was because of threat, *coercion, etc. but the requirement is that it may appear to the court as such.' 62. The Hon'b1e Tribunal in the case of K.K. Saidalavi vs. Commissioner reported in 2006 (199) ELT 813 has held that: " ... belated retraction inconsequential in absence of evidence to show that the same were given under duress'. 63. In view of the above, I thus find that in the present case except a sweeping statement questioning the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the investigating agency stated that the goods were in fact cleared sometimes under delivery challans (kacha parchies) as well as under invoices . In view of all these material evidences (various inculpatory statements corroborated with the seizure of consignment that was delivered in the manner as admitted in the statements ) on record, I do not find force in the argument of the noticee firms that the figures arrived at in the impugned show cause notice are based on surmises alone and I find that the evidences on record are strong enough to prove that the value of clearances arrived at in the impugned show cause notice on the basis of kacha parchies, on the basis of resumed records and on the basis of invoices/balance sheet are correct." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers, there was nothing to show that they were recorded by duly authorised Officers, namely such Officers who hold the rank of Superintendent, or higher. 6. Having heard learned counsels, we are of the view that the Tribunal should have undertaken a more thorough scrutiny of the statements of the parties and other witnesses recorded by the officers of the appellant. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority could have called upon the appellant to disclose as to which of the Officers has recorded the statements under Section 14 and to ascertain, as to whether or not, they were authorised to record such statements. The Tribunal should have also appreciated the reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority that the earlier statements ....