Page 151 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX v. JAIN & COMPANY 541

evidences on record are strong enough to prove that the value of clearances
arrived at in the impugned show cause notice on the basis of kacha par-
chies, on the basis of resumed records and on the basis of invoices/balance
sheet are correct.”
3. The submission of Mr. Harpreet Singh, Learned Senior Standing
Counsel is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the findings returned by the
Learned ACMM were only of prima facie nature, and in respect of statements
which were recorded by officers of Central Excise, the Tribunal did not under-
take any enquiry to find out, as to whether, or not, they were recorded by the
Central Excise Officer of the rank of Superintendent or above. Merely because the
rank was not mentioned by the Central Excise Officer who recorded the state-
ments, did not vitiate the statements, since the Tribunal could have determined,
by calling upon the appellant, to disclose as to whose signatures are appended
on the statements and what rank was held by them on the date on which the
statements were recorded by them.
4. He further points out that statements which were recorded without
the signatures of the Central Excise Officer, and which were affirmed in the sub-
sequent statement stood incorporated in the subsequent statement and, if the
subsequent statement was before an authorised Central Excise Officer in terms of
Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, the earlier statement too became admissible.
He submits that this aspect has not been examined by the Tribunal.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued
that the statements were either recorded without the signatures of the Officers, or
even whether they were so recorded with the signatures of the Central Excise
Officers, there was nothing to show that they were recorded by duly authorised
Officers, namely such Officers who hold the rank of Superintendent, or higher.
6. Having heard Learned Counsels, we are of the view that the Tribu-
nal should have undertaken a more thorough scrutiny of the statements of the
parties and other witnesses recorded by the officers of the appellant. The Tribu-
nal being the last fact finding authority could have called upon the appellant to
disclose as to which of the Officers has recorded the statements under Section 14
and to ascertain, as to whether or not, they were authorised to record such state-
ments. The Tribunal should have also appreciated the reasoning given by the
Adjudicating Authority that the earlier statements, though not bearing the signa-
tures 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.
7. Accordingly we allow the present appeal by answering the questions
in favour of the appellant and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for re-
appreciation of the evidence on the aforesaid aspect.
8. The Tribunal shall also consider the plea of the respondent with re-
gard to denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and shall deal with
the findings returned by the Adjudicating Authority in that regard.
9. The Tribunal shall also consider the detailed legal submissions of the
parties. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 18-3-2020.
10. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  151