1. In complaints of clandestine removal of excisable goods without payment of duty, corroboration of the department's case is a vital requirement. The statements of the complainant (buyer) recovered under a proper panchnama are admissible if the ownership is not denied and the entries are explained by the owner. Retracted confessions are not automatically worthless; they may form the basis of a conviction if they are found to be voluntary and truthful and are corroborated by other independent and cogent evidence, such as seizure of documents explaining the transaction or statements of other accomplices.
2. The burden to prove that a confession was induced by threat, duress, or inducement lies heavily on the accused. Merely showing a retraction of a confessional statement is not sufficient to make it irrelevant if it was initially voluntary and truthful. Retracted statements must be tested under Sections 24-30 of the Evidence Act, and the burden to prove involuntariness is on the accused, who must substantiate allegations of coercion with evidence, not merely allegations.
3. A directive to the Appellate Tribunal responsible for the first appellate jurisdiction against the original adjudication requires an independent and exhaustive elucidation of the factual contentions raised by the parties. It is not sufficient for the Tribunal to reproduce the findings of the order-in-original. The Tribunal must exercise a fresh and independent application of mind, specifically dealing with diverse contentions of fact and law, to meet the requirement of natural justice and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others concerning reasoned orders by quasi-judicial authorities.
4. Relying on the above, the appeals are allowed in the specific ground that the impugned order suffers for failing to meet the legal mandate of reasoned deliberation. The matter is remanded to the CESTAT for a fresh decision on the merits without being influenced by the impugned order.
