- (1.) This order shall dispose of C.E.A. Nos. 164, 165 and 166 of 2006 which have been filed by the revenue under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 , challenging the orders dated 2-2- 2006 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal raising same question of fact and law. The Tribunal has found it as a fact that there was a small discrepancy notices in the stock on the date of verification but there was no evidence supporting the allegation that the entire production of the assessee on from June 1995 to March 1997 was cotton yarn on cone and that whatever clearance was made as hank yarn was liable to duty. It has further been observed that the discrepancy found in one consignment has not been even the subject-matter of proceedings which cannot constitute the basis to conclude that the entire production of the assessee during the impugned period was excisable. It has further been held that any such finding would be contrary to contemporary statutory record and that the assessee had intimated the revenue about the installation of machinery for hank yarn production. The unit had been visited from time to time by the Revenue Officers and the correctness of its record was duly certified. There is no material in favour of the revenue after the verification with the purchaser as no stock with them was found. The statement of the Chairman has not been given higher evidentiary value than the statutory record and accordingly it has been held that allegation made by the revenue could not be established.
(2.) Despite the aforementioned findings recorded by the Tribunal, the revenue has claimed that the following substantial question of law would arise for adjudication of this Court :- "Whether the CESTAT is justified in ignoring the voluntary and confessional statement duly supported by the circumstantial evidence, of a person no less than a Chairman of the party recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944, which is an admissible evidence as held by various courts judgments, particularly when the statement has........ without any threat, duress and coercion and has not been retracted by the concerned person till filing of reply to Show Cause Notice after one and a half years, which can be termed as only an after thought?"
(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel, we do not find that any substantive question of law would arise for our determination because on the basis of available evidence including the statement of the Chairman, a finding of fact has been recorded that the allegations levelled against the assessee were against the statutory record available. It is well-settled that if a Judge of fact has reached a particular conclusion on the basis of available evidence then merely because another view by another Judge of fact is possible, would not constitute the basis for interference in the findings of facts. The evidence on record has not been found sufficient to conclude that the allegations have been proved. It is also well-settled that admission made by a party could be explained which has been done in the present case by giving precedence to the statutory record showing facts contrary to the admission. Therefore, no interference of this Court would be warranted in these proceedings nor any, substantive question of law would arise for our adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.;