Page 148 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

538 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

factory premises in view of the provisions of Section 144 of the 1962
Act, as held by us in the judgment rendered in CWP No. 23588 of
2016, titled “M/s. Raghav Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and
Others, decided on 7-1-2020 [2020 (372) E.L.T. 42 (P & H)];
(ii) that in the absence of any extension of time after expiry of one year
w.e.f. 28-3-2018 for adjudication on the show cause notice dated
7-2-2014 (P-6), either under Section 28 sub-section (9) or (9A) of the
1962 Act, we hold that the impugned show cause notice has lapsed
for the reasons recorded by this Court in M/s. Harkaran Dass Vedpal’s
case (supra).
5. In view of above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
show cause notice dated 7-2-2014 (P-6) is hereby quashed.
______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 538 (Del.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli, JJ.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
Versus
JAIN & COMPANY
CEAC Nos. 10-11 of 2018 & C.M. Nos. 7817-7818 of 2018, decided on 10-12-2019
1
Evidence - Statements of noticees - Statements recorded without the
signatures of Central Excise Officer - Tribunal should have undertaken a more
thorough scrutiny of the statements of the parties and other witnesses record-
ed by the officers of appellant - Tribunal being the last fact finding authority
could have called upon appellant to disclose as to which of the officers record-
ed the statements under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and to ascertain,
as to whether or not, they were authorized to record such statements - Tribunal
should have also appreciated the reasoning given by Adjudicating Authority
that earlier statements though not bearing the signatures of the officer who
recorded the same, stood incorporated in the subsequent statement made by
the same person when he affirmed the fact that his statements was so recorded
- Accordingly, matter remanded back to the Tribunal for reappreciation of the
evidence on this aspect. [paras 6, 7]
Case remanded
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Harpreet Singh with Ms. Suhani Mathur,
Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - We have heard Learned Counsels. The following substantial
questions of law arise for our consideration and are framed :
“A. Whether the Learned Tribunal did not err in holding that statements
of noticees recorded u/s 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were not admis-
sible in evidence since the same did not bear the signatures of the officials
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order No. 54111-54112/2017, dated 21-6-2017 by CESTAT, New Delhi.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  148