Paras Laminates P. Ltd. vs Cce on 12 August, 2004
10. The Revenue has relied upon the statements of the dealers to show that they had not supplied laminated sheets of 3 mm thickness. First of all these dealers were not produced for being cross-examined by the Appellants. It has been held by the Tribunal in Takshila Spinners v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2001 (131) ELT 568 (T) that "Whatever those witnesses stated during the investigation before the Preventive Staff could not be accepted as gospel truth by the Commissioner". The Tribunal has also held that "legally the statements of those witnesses could not be accepted or taken into evidence, for having failed to submit themselves for cross-examination, by the Appellants." We also observe that the thickness of the laminated sheets sold by the dealers was not mentioned in the Sale Bills issued by them. In view of this fact, the only evidence against the Appellants is the statements of dealers who have not been subjected to cross-examination by the Appellants. Accordingly these statements which have not been tested in cross-examination cannot be relied upon against the Appellants. Moreover, the Appellants had produced an Affidavit of Shri Kapil Dev Pandit of Bakelite Home wherein he has averred that decorative laminated sheets of 3 mm thickness had been supplied by them to the Appellants. Thus, the Revenue has not succeeded in proving that the dealers had not supplied the laminated sheets of 3 mm thickness.