Commissioner of Central Excise v. Shakti Zarda Factory (I) Ltd.

[Order]. - Revenue has approached this Court seeking a Reference. They, inter alia, contend that the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act should be read in evidence despite its subsequent retraction. According to the Revenue, it does not lose its admissibility. Tribunal has examined the matter in detail. On appreciation of evidence, it held that entire evidence referred to in the impugned order and relied upon by the Commissioner is either inadmissible in evidence or lacks corroboration from other reliable concrete documentary evidence as discussed. The Tribunal has examined evidence in great detail with regard to manufacturing of pouches. It also noted that no specific finding has been recorded by the Commissioner about the pouches purchased from Mega Plast Industries. The Tribunal after examining the evidence of Hare Ram and others, who are dealers in the article in question and on a totality of the circumstances, arrived at the conclusion that the statements were not reliable and were not corroborated in material particulars. The initial burden was on the Department to prove the allegations of the clandestine receipt of raw material or manufacture and removal of the final products. The Tribunal expressed an opinion that from the evidence brought on records by the Department and referred to in the judgment, such burden did not stand discharged. Thus, purely on appreciation of evidence the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion and in our opinion there is no question of law involved. Hence, CM and the main case are dismissed.