Page 99 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] N.R. SPONGE PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR 321

2020 (372) E.L.T. 321 (Chhattisgarh)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ and Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
N.R. SPONGE PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR
Tax Case No. 40 of 2015, decided on 29-7-2019
1
Demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Evidence - Incriminating
materials retrieved from premises of assessee during inspection and physical
verification of stock reflected shortage of goods - Finding rendered not solely
with reference to contents of some ‘loose sheets’ recovered from premises of
assessee but on the basis of other incriminating materials traced out and the
statements given by different persons including Director/Shift Supervi-
sors/Accountant/Cashier/Transporter and Brokers/Commission Agent, com-
pared and analyzed with reference to records/materials seized/recovered -
Thus finding rendered on the basis of facts and evidence on record concurring
with finding of adjudicating officer and Appellate Authority is not liable to be
interfered by High Court in exercise of power under Section 35G of Central
Excise Act, 1944 - No specific case for the appellant-assessee before the Adju-
dicating Authority or before Commissioner (Appeals) or Tribunal that the
statement was obtained under ‘duress or coercion’ from Director or from other
persons/witnesses concerned, though, a vague averment made before High
Court - Thus no proper pleading of ‘threat/force/duress/coercion or pressure’ as
being utilized by Officers of Revenue to extract the statements - Allegation of
violation of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 not attracted. [paras 13, 14,
15, 18, 19, 20, 24]
Demand - Clandestine removal - Evidence - Section 9D(1) of Central
Excise Act, 1944 - Extent and applicability - Not a provision vouched in a ‘nega-
tive sense’ to hold that statement given by person concerned shall not be ac-
ceptable in evidence for the proceedings concerned - Fixation of duty evaded is
one thing and mulcting of penalty for offence in respect of such evasion is dif-
ferent thing. [paras 21, 22]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. — 2011 (270) E.L.T. 643 (S.C.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................... [Paras 18, 19, 23]
Commissioner v. S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. — 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. J28 (Chhattisgarh)
— Distinguished ........................................................................................................................... [Para 15]
Commissioner v. S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. — 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 42 (Tribunal)
— Distinguished ........................................................................................................................... [Para 16]
Hi Tech Abrasives Limited v. Commissioner — 2018 (362) E.L.T. 961 (Chhattisgarh)
— Referred ................................................................................................................... [Paras 15, 17, 18, 23]
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2015 (328) E.L.T. 453 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  99