No Reliance can be Placed on Confessional Statements in Absence of Cross-Examination: CESTAT quashes Excise Duty Demand [Read Order]

Confessional Statements - Cross-Examination - CESTAT - Excise Duty Demand - Excise Duty - Demand - Excise - Customs - Service Tax - Tax - Taxscan

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Ahmedabad Bench quashed excise duty demand and ruled that no reliance can be placed on confessional statements in the absence of cross-examination.

A case was booked against appellant, Messrs GrowmoreCeramics Pvt Ltd, for clandestine removal of goods based on certain documents recovered from the appellant and certain statements recorded by Revenue. The tribunal in its order noticed certain discrepancies in analysis of documents in the order in original.

The matter has travelled between commissioner and Tribunal number of times and on earlier occasion the directions of Tribunal were not followed.

In the impugned order, the Commissioner has allowed the adjustment for the period 1999-2000 as directed in the Tribunal orders. As regard the demand for the year 2000-2001, the Commissioner has relied on the statements given by the buyers to confirm the charge of clandestine clearance. The appellants have heavily contested the fact that no cross-examination of the buyers was allowed and therefore no reliance on statements can be made.

The order of the Tribunal clearly holds that the amount shown as a progressive total and has to be treated in that manner.The Commissioner has clearly ignored the findings and come to a difference conclusion. While doing so the Commissioner relied on the confessional statements of buyers.

No opportunity of cross-examination has been given and the test of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act has not been passed in respect of the statements.

The Single Bench of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member observed that “In absence of cross-examination no reliance can be placed on these statements. The amount of duty for financial year 2000-01 has been confirmed in total ignoring the directions given by the Tribunal. The impugned order is therefore set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for determination of the duty liability for the financial year 2000-01.”

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader