Page 172 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

706 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

ment Directorate to have produced material to the effect that Sh. Satish Kumar
Sharma @ Pappu had made payments to the appellant by order or on behalf of a
person resident outside India.
13. Although it is alleged that the documents seized from the residence
of Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma @ Pappu indicated payments made to Sh Ashish
Jain, no such material has been placed on record. Further, the original order
passed by the Enforcement Directorate does not mention (i) the particulars of any
such documents; (ii) the payments allegedly recorded therein; or (iii) any materi-
al to establish that the said payments were in fact, made. The question as to who
had made these payments and to whom, remains completely vague.
14. The original order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority solely
on the basis of an alleged statement of Sh. Ashish Jain, an employee of the appel-
lant. He alleged that he had received a sum of ` 68,50,000/- at the instance of a
person resident in Dubai. However, there is no material brought on record to
establish the person who had delivered the said amounts to Ashish Jain and to
whom he had distributed it. Admittedly, Sh. Ashish Jain had retracted his state-
ment on the very next day of making such statement, that is, on 5-10-1995. The
appellant had also alleged that the statement of Sh. Ashish Jain was recorded
forcibly and under coercion. The Appellate Authority had noted in the Appellate
Order that Ashish Jain had retracted his statement on 5-10-1995. It is important to
note that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the Appellate Authority had
imposed a penalty without taking into account the statement of Sh. Ashish Jain.
The relevant extract of the said impugned order reads as under :
“The Special Director (Appeals) also specifically recorded in the im-
pugned that the statement of Sh. Ashish Jain being retracted has no eviden-
tiary value. Therefore, he imposed penalty on the appellant without taking
into account his statement.”
15. Thus, it does appear from the impugned order that the Tribunal
had accepted that the statement made by Sh. Ashish Jain had no evidentiary val-
ue and yet upheld the Appellate Order.
16. Admittedly, Ashish Jain had retracted his statement on the very
next day. Further, it is also apparent that the said statement was not corroborated
by any credible material/evidence. Sh. Ashish Jain had neither disclosed the per-
sons from whom he had allegedly received any money nor disclosed the names
of any person to whom he had distributed the same. Sh. Ashish Jain was also not
produced in any of the proceedings in order for the appellant to cross-examine
him. Thus, this Court is of the view that even if the statement had not been re-
tracted, it would have been of little value. However, in fact, Ashish Jain had re-
tracted his statement on the very next day. It is now well settled that confessions
and statements, which have been retracted, have little value unless they are cor-
roborated by other material.
17. In Vinod Solanki v. Union of India and Anr. : (2008) 16 SCC 537 = 2009
(233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.), the Supreme Court held as
under :
“23. It is a trite law that evidence brought on record by way of confession
which stood retracted must be substantially corroborated by other inde-
pendent and cogent evidence, which would lend adequate assurance to the
Court that it may seek to rely thereupon. We are not oblivious of some de-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  172