Page 150 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

540 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

61. I also find that Shri Pawan Kumar Jain had during the investigations
alleged that force and coercion were used by Central Excise officers while
recording his statements. This allegation was reiterated by Ms. Anita Jain
and also by Sh. Chote Lal. However it is seen that this retraction was made
on 27-10-2010 i.e. more than a year after tendering of first statement on 28-
11-2009. I therefore find that the belated retraction is an afterthought not
meriting acceptance. Further the observations made by Courts in the case of
Vinod Solanki v. Union of India, 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.) to be relevant. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter alia held in this case as under :
‘34. …….. With a view to arrive at a finding as regards the volun-
tary nature of statement or otherwise of a confession which has
since been retracted, the Court must bear in mind the attending cir-
cumstances which would include the time of retraction, the nature
thereof, the manner in which such retraction has been made and
other relevant factors. Law does not say that the accused has to
prove that retraction of statement made by him was because of
threat, coercion, etc. but the requirement is that it may appear to the
court as such.’
62. The Hon’b1e Tribunal in the case of K.K. Saidalavi v. Commissioner re-
ported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 813 has held that :
“ ... belated retraction inconsequential in absence of evidence to
show that the same were given under duress”.
63. In view of the above, I thus find that in the present case except a
sweeping statement questioning the voluntary nature of statements that too
made after more than a year of recording first statement, there is nothing on
record to suggest that the statements were under duress. Further the facts
disclosed by Shri Pawan Kumar Jain have also been corroborated with the
disclosures made by other persons such as buyers, suppliers etc. in their in-
dependent statements under Section 14 of the Act ibid. As such I hold that
the statements relied upon in the present case were voluntary statements.
64. It is also seen that during the course of searches conducted in the pre-
sent case, the delivery challans (i.e. the kacha parchies) were resumed from
the premises of M/s. Jain & Company and M/s. Anil Sales Corporation.
Documents were also resumed from the premises of M/s. Suraj Transport
Co. (the transporter of the goods for M/s. Anil Sales Corporation, Narela).
In respect of these delivery challans, the statements of the respective super-
visors of M/s. Jain & Company and M/s. Anil Sales Corporation reveals
that the clearances were made under these delivery challans. The buyers
have, in their independent statements, also stated that they were receiving
the goods without bills from M/s. Jain & Company and M/s. Anil Sales
Corporation. It is also on record that the 6000 kgs of M.S. Wire seized from
the premises of M/s. Shakti Industries was received from M/s. Jain &
Company and M/s. Anil Sales Corporation under the cover of kacha par-
chies. Moreover Shri Pawan Kumar Jain has in his voluntary statements be-
fore the investigating agency stated that the goods were in fact cleared
sometimes under delivery challans (kacha parchies) as well as under in-
voices. In view of all these material evidences (various inculpatory state-
ments corroborated with the seizure of consignment that was delivered in
the manner as admitted in the statements) on record, I do not find force in
the argument of the noticee firms that the figures arrived at in the im-
pugned show cause notice are based on surmises alone and I find that the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  150