Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.4. Even the adjudicating authority's finding of commonalities in respect of factory premises etc., does not appear to be well-founded. After noting that the premises of DMG and CAE were separated by a wire-mesh, the Commissioner recorded a finding to the effect that the two units had common office, common stores and common testing laboratory. He did not say which was on whose side of the wire-mesh, nor did the photographs (which he accepted as evidence in the case) indicate existence of any openings in the mesh for ingress and egress of workers. As regards management, it is an admitted position that the directors of one unit were not on the board of directors of the other. The Commissioner, however, found that both the units were under the overall control of one Rajiv Gambhir and that the units belonged to the Gambhir family. This finding is not supported by any cogent evidence. Even Shri Rajiv Gambhir did not depose (in his statement recorded by C.E. officers) that he was in overall control or that the directors of the two units were all his family members. The finding of common labour has been drawn from statements of some of the employees/workers, notwithstanding the fact (acknowledged by the Commissioner) that some of those statements had not been signed by any C.E. officer. In this connection, we have considered the case law which was cited by Id. Consultant in support of his argument that the unsigned statement were not reliable. In the cited case of State v. Yakub Ahmed [2000 (125) E.L.T. 113 (Bom.)], it was held by the High Court that statements not recorded by gazetted officer of Customs under Section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible in evidence. We note that, by and large, the provisions of Section 108 ibid are pari materia to those of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act under which the above statements were recorded. The only difference between the two provisions appears to be that, while under Section 108 of the Customs Act 'any gazetted officer of Customs' shall have power to take evidence from any person, 'any Central Excise officer duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf shall have similar power under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. The Central Government has empowered all officers not below a specified rank for purposes of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. It would follow from these provisions that any statement of any person recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act should be signed by any gazetted officer of Customs and any statement of any person recorded under Section 14 of the Customs Act should be signed by an officer of Central Excise empowered by the Central Govern-