2025-VIL-2111-CESTAT-ALH-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Confiscation of goods – Demand of duty – Officers conducted search at factory premises which was used for manufacturing and sale of Gutkha under names of non-existent units – Case of revenue is that Appellant is the owner of factory and goods found there – After investigation, department issued show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods along with currency seized from residence of Appellant and demand of duty – Adjudicating authority confirmed proposals made in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Adjudicating authority – Whether Appellant has any connection with alleged factory premises – HELD – Case of revenue is that Appellant is the owner of alleged factory premises and therefore, he is liable to pay duty on clandestinely cleared Gutkha from said factory premises. Revenue had relied on statement of Appellant’s wife. Specific case of Appellant is that his wife’s statement was recorded under pressure and coercion. Adjudicating Authority was required to examine as to either statements were voluntary or not before relying upon the statements. Adjudication order does not show that this exercise had been conducted by Adjudicating Authority. Statements relied upon by revenue are not admissible evidence and same are required to be eschewed from consideration. Apart from statements, there is no evidence to link goods found at Appellant’s residence with raw material found at alleged factory premises. No adverse inference can be drawn against Appellant merely because some goods were found at residence of Appellant. Appellant had no connection with alleged factory premises. Confiscation of goods and currency seized from Appellant’s residence cannot be upheld. Demand of duty and imposition of penalty on Appellant is also set aside – Appeals allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page