- (1.) The pristine question raised in this appeal is whether statements made under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are admissible in evidence to sustain penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessee has filed the instant appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, the Act'), challenging order dated 17-5-2006, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, the Tribunal'), in Appeal No. Excise/1053/2004, upholding the order-in-original dated 10-12-2003, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, whereby invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act, demand of duty of Rs. 59,79,963/- (Rs. 54,99,963/- + Rs. 4,80,000/-) has been raised. The assessee-appellant has also been held liable for penal action for violations of Rule 9(1), 52A, 173F, 173C, 53 read with Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for brevity, the Rules'). Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 59,79,963/- has been imposed under Rule 173Q of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. Further the assessee-appellant has been ordered to pay interest on the duty demanded, under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Act.
(2.) The assessee-appellant has claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this Court :- (i) Whether any demand or penalty could be levied against the appellant in the absence of any evidence except the so-called diary maintained by an employee or the confessional statement of the proprietor of the recipient firm? (ii Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was required to be given to the appellant? (ii Whether the so-called recovery from one Shri Ram Kumar is admissible piece of evidence in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of CBI V/s. V.C. Shukla, 1998 3 SCC 410? (iv Whether the statements recorded of Shivji Ram, proprietor during the course of search, which later stood withdrawn was of any value as the same was under duress? (v) Whether the aforesaid statement of Shivji Ram was admissible piece of evidence? (vi Whether any demand/penalty could be levied on the appellant in the absence of any opportunity of cross- examination having been granted with regard to the witnesses relied upon by the department?
(3.) Facts of the case may first be noticed. The assessee firm is having their manufacturing unit at Sangrur Road, Dirba, District Sangrur and registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacture of ERW Pipes' falling under Chapter 73 of the First Schedule of the Act.;