Page 104 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

326 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

observed in paragraph 10.1 of the order that the Appellant-Assessee could not
reconcile with the facts and figures; observing that when certain entries in the
“pencil handwritten ledger”, matched with the Central Excise invoices while the
other entries did not match, the unmatched entries became testimony of clandes-
tine removal, not supported by invoices. It was in support of the same that the
statement of the Shift Supervisors was held as something self-speaking and could
not be brushed aside. This was further fortified by the admission of the liability
by the Director of the Appellant-Company, expressing willingness to satisfy the
duty payable on the goods which were removed but were not supported by ex-
cise invoices, in turn, while admitting the entries made by ‘pencil’ in the hand
written ledger. The strange way of making entries in the ledger by ‘pencil’
(which was to be an authenticated document) could not be explained in any
manner, much less satisfactorily, by the learned counsel for the Appellant before
this Court. The Tribunal observed that the clandestine removal was well within
the knowledge of the Shift Supervisors/Accountant/Director/Transporters and
the Commission Agent/Brokers and that the evidence brought on record corelat-
ed with one another, establishing the inextricable link to evasion. It was accord-
ingly held that the Revenue had discharged its onus of proving the allegation;
whereas the Appellant/Assessee had miserably failed to discharge its burden of
proof and that, it was not a case of some solitary evidence, but of multiple ech-
oed evidence which demonstrated the oblique motive of the Appellant and
proved its mala fides, in turn leading to dismissal of the appeal filed by the As-
sessee.
14. The above discussion clearly reveals that the finding rendered was
not solely with reference to the contents of some ‘loose sheets’ recovered from
the premises of the Assessee, but on the basis of other incriminating materials
traced out and the statements given by different persons including the Direc-
tor/Shift Supervisors/Accountant/Cashier/Transporters and the Bro-
kers/Commission Agent, compared and analysed with reference to the rec-
ords/materials seized/recovered. As it stands so, the clear finding rendered on
the basis of the facts and evidence on record, concurring with the finding of the
Adjudicating Officer and the Appellate Authority is not liable to be interdicted
by this Court in exercise of power under Section 35G of the Act, 1944.
15. It is the case of the Appellant that there is violation of Section 9D of
the Act, 1944, insofar as no statement of the Director or the witnesses was ever
taken by the Tribunal, to be accepted in evidence, but for relying on the state-
ments given before the investigating team. Reliance is sought to be placed on the
verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd. v. Com-
missioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur; 2018 (362) E.L.T. 961 (Chhattisgarh)
and also the verdict dated 16-10-2016 passed by another Bench of this Court in
Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. M/s.
S.K. Sarawagi & Company Pvt. Ltd. (Tax Case No. 117 of 2016) - 2018 (12) G.S.T.L.
J28 (Chhattisgarh).
16. Coming to the latter judgment, it was an appeal preferred by the
Revenue challenging the verdict passed by the Tribunal reported in 2018 (12)
G.S.T.L. 42 (Tri. - Del.). It is true that the said case was involving an issue as to
the clandestine removal of sponge iron. The order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority against the Assessee was set aside in appeal by the Commissioner
(Appeals) and this was challenged by the Revenue by approaching the Tribunal.
After going through the facts and records, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  104