TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained cash, rolled into bundles and attached with certain chits were found lying in the drawer of the cabin of Shri Navinchandra Purshottambhai Dholakia, Partner of Appellant's firm. The physical verification of finished excisable goods lying at the Appellant on the day of the search revealed that goods were lying unaccounted and in excess of the recorded balance appeared in the statutory daily stocks account viz. RG-1 Register, maintained up to 13.06.2006. Search was also conducted at the premises of employee and department also conducted inquiry with buyers and at the end of the Job-workers. Statements of persons were recorded. On the basis of investigation carried out by the Department, a show cause notice dated 11-12-2006 was issued wherein it was alleged that the appellant had evaded payment of duty by clandestinely clearing fully manufactured snuff in the guise of clearance of semi-processed snuff to various Job-workers, from their registered factory premises. The Ld. Commissioner adjudicated the SCN vide impugned order and confirmed the demand of Rs. 1, 19,92,836/- as excise duty, confiscated cash of Rs, 48,500/- , confiscated 4866.42 Kgs. of Snuff with redemption fine of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that Shri Babubhai Chavada one of the Job workers was cross-examined and he has clearly stated that the chits were for work of grinding done by him and other person, and the goods ground by them and mentioned in the Chits were sent back to the main factory. Shri Vima lMavani (Accounts Clerk) was also cross examined. He also clarified that the Chits were for grinding snuff returned by the job workers from Kandviwala Ghar, and the Chits were maintained for payment to Job Workers at the end of each month. He also clarified that these chits were for recording receipts of materials after job work, and not for removing any material or snuff from Mahasugandhi Snuff Works. 3.3 He argued that, factually, the only evidence that 318 Chits were for removal of fully manufactured snuff from the Appellant's factory without payment of excise duty was the statement of Shri Navinbahi P. Dolakia recorded on 14.06.2006; and this statement was retracted with full details of the method of grinding, Job works etc., and the facts explained by Shri Dholakia in retraction affidavit as well as the covering letter correlate and match with the depositions of the Job workers as well as the accounts clerk. Af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y removed clandestinely; there is no instance of actual removal of unaccounted finished goods without payment of duty; there is no discovery of such finished goods outside the factory; there is no statements of any buyers nor any proof of actual transportation of the goods cleared without payment of duty; the statement of a partner stand retracted with full details whereas no subsequent statement of any confessions has been recorded after the retraction; and the chits forming basis of the revenue's case do not support any clandestine removal of fully finished goods. In absence of any such evidence, the case of clandestine removal of fully finished snuff weighing 2.96 laks Kgs. Valued at Rs. 1.78 crores (rounded of) in not at all established by the revenue. He placed reliance on the following Judgments:- Mahesh Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2014(304)ELT 703 (Tri. Ahmd) Commissioner Vs. Mahesh Silk Mills - 2015(319)ELT A52(Guj.) Balajee Structural (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2016(341)ELT 457 (Tri. Del.) Kumar Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. Ahmedabad -2008(229)ELT 273(Tri. Ahmd.) Denna Paints Vs. CCE, New Delhi -2001(43....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n after almost a month is nothing but to circumvent the law. The affidavit submitted by the Appellant vide their letter dated. 10.07.2006 is nothing but an afterthought which has been clearly brought out by the Commissioner in his order. Shri Vimal Mavani who had prepared chits had never retracted his statement. His deposition was further endorsed by the Partners of the Appellant Shri Navinchandra Dholkia and Shri Jayesh N Dholakia. 4.2. He also placed reliance on the following Judgments:- A Shaud Ali Vs. CC., Madurai - 2001 (133) ELT 554 (Mad.) CC., Madras -1 Vs. Govindasamy Rahupathy - 1998(98) ELT 50 (Mad) Bhanabhai Khalpabhai Vs. CC - 1994 (71)ELT 3 (SC) Devender Exports Vs. CCE, Ludhiana - 2007(219) ELT 533 (Tri. Del) CCE, Ahmedabad -I, Vs. Gopal Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. - 2007(215) ELT 558 (Tri. Ahmd) CCE, Surat-I Vs. ND Textiles - 2004 (168)ELT 381 Ludhiana Foods Products Vs. CCE - 1989(43) ELT 648(Tri.) MitexImpex Vs. CCE - 2017(349)ELT 567(Guj) CCE Vs. Kay Bee Tax Spin Ltd. - 2017(349)ELT 451 (Guj) S M Steel Ropes Vs. CCE, (Adj) Mumbai - 2014(304) ELT 591 (Tri. -Mum) Umesha Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2014(314) ELT 176 (Tri. Mum) Haryan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is enough evidence on record to sustain the charge of clandestine removal against the appellant. 5.3. We find that the learned counsel has referred to the affidavit as clarificatory. Any clarificatory statement should have been given, without delay, to the authority which recorded the original statement. In the present matter admissions have been made in the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. The retraction of any statement, in our opinion, should be made to the authority before whom the statements were given. Thus, it is between the person who gave the statement and the person before whom the statement was given. Any communication addressed to others can only be considered as representation or compliant. It is not their case that any retraction was given to the officer, who has recorded the statements. It is also not their case that they made any representation to the senior officers, who supervise the work of the officers, who recorded the statements alleging any threat or compulsion on the part of the officers while recording the statements. The affidavit filed by the appellant cannot be considered as retraction of statements given under Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndents was visited by the Central Excise officers on 25-7-2000. On verification of the stock of the raw material and finished goods, shortage of 8.835 MTs of non-alloy steel ingots was detected. Similarly, some shortage of runners and risers was also detected at the spot. These shortages were admitted by Shri Ajay Goyal, Director of the respondents and the entire duty involved on both the shortages was debited by the respondents. The plea of the respondents that no actual weighment was done for arriving at the correct shortage of the goods detailed above and that the quantity has been arrived at, on estimation basis has been wrongly accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the duty demand. This plea could not be allowed to be taken by them in the face of the confessional statement of Ajay Goyal, Director of the respondents before the Excise staff at the time of checking. The respondents are bound by the admission made by their Director and could not later on complain that the shortage was not properly arrived at. Even at the time of signing of the panchnama prepared at the spot, the Director of the respondents or any other representative never took exception to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the claims of appellant that 318 Chits were prepared for payment of Job work charges cannot be accepted as it was an afterthought and concocted on basis of cross-examination of persons. We also find that Statements tendered by a Job Worker Shri, Jaswantray Vora confirmed that no goods had been received in these chits. Further, if dalat register could be maintained at the Job-workers end to show receipts of the goods at their place then the appellant could also have maintained register for showing receipts of goods from the Jobworker Place. If they had maintained the register there was no need for keeping transaction recorded on Chits. The contention of the appellant that they had recorded the movement of goods shown in the chits in their register does not hold that good as there was no job-work challans issued for such movements. Also no such register containing the transaction were recovered from the Appellant's premises. As such, we find no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Ld. Commissioner. 5.7 We also find that the decisions referred to by the ld. Advocate do not advance the appellant's case inasmuch as in the case of clandestine removal, the ap....