CCE Vs. SASIDHARA DYERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a Revenue appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. 134/98 (CBE) dated 6.10.98 dropping demands raised on the all allegation of clandestine removal of processed fabrics by the respondents. The investigating authority had recorded the statement of one Shri Sampath and had seized some private diary where there was certain entries of production. Based on these two pieces of evidence, the case bad been booked for recovery of duty of Rs. 4,36,428. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's argument that the statement had been recorded on coercion and the same had been resiled. They also submitted that there was no corroborative evidence of manufacture and removal of goods. It was also pleaded that the entries made in the note book cannot be accepted as a piece of evidence. In this regard, the Commissioner has relied on a number of judgments. The findings recorded by him in paras 3 to 6 are reproduced herein below:

(2.) Revenue in this appeal contends that the said findings are not as per law. They contend that the registers, private books can also be accepted as a piece of evidence besides as the same was corroborated by the statement given by Shri Sampath. It is stated that the production details were written from 23.2.96 to 8.4.96 and in the second note book the same were found from 1.4.96 to 5.7.96. At the time of investigation the proprietor Sri Sampath had admitted that the above details of productions were related to his unit. Hence the production note book is the basic evidence to prove the illicit transaction and it cannot be ignored as only a rough note book. Therefore, the observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) that these books were rough note books and could not be relied upon to establish the clandestine removal does not seem to be a correct finding.

(3.) Likewise, the grounds have been made out with regard to the admission made by Sri Sampath in his statement and it is submitted that the private records are essential to prove that the assessee had maintained separate set of accounts for clandestine removal which are required to be considered as corroborative evidence; For the admissions made in the statement, therefore, it is pleaded that statement and the private record cannot be ignored and demands raised in the show cause notice are required to be confirmed.