Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2014 (6) TMI 382 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - presumption - proof by identification of handwriting or signature - evidential value of opinion of the Govt. handwriting expert - manufacture of Shimla & Vansh brand Gutkha Pan Masala & Mouth Freshner which is sold in retail pouches - majority order - Held that - opinion of handwriting expert is a weak evidence which should be taken with caution and is not reliable unless supported by other independent evidence. The allegation against the Respondent Company is sought to be proved by the opinion of the handwriting expert Sh. C.T. Sarwate as Sh. Arvind Gupta of M/s. Hans Travels has not named Sh. Subhash Joshi and Sh. A.C. Upadhyay the employees of the Respondent as the persons who had taken delivery of the consignments of outer pouches in his presence and had signed the delivery sheets and neither anyone familiar with their signatures has identified the signature on the luggage delivery sheets nor they have accepted the signature on the luggage delivery sheets as their signatures. For testing the correctness of the opinion of Sh. Sarwate his cross examination was necessary as other handwriting expert Sh. A.N.Ganorkar has given a contrary opinion and both Sh. Subhash Joshi and Sh. A.C.Upadhyay have stated that signatures on the documents of M/s. Hans Travels are not their signatures. But cross examination of Sh. Sarwate was not possible on account of his death. Therefore the opinion of Sh. C.T.Sarwate by itself has no evidentiary value and in view of the judgments of Apex Court and various high courts mentioned above it not even admissible as evidence. The allegation of un-accounted receipt of outer pouches for packing of retail pouches of Gutkha Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner cannot be upheld the presumption of un-accounted manufacture of retail pouches of Gutkha Pan Masala and Mouth Freshner and their clearance without payment of duty cannot be made and as such the duty demand against the Respondent cannot be upheld. The Commissioner has dropped the duty demand only on the ground that merely on the basis of alleged receipt of outer pouches for packing retail pouches of Gutkha Pan Masala & Mouth Freshner without any other evidence regarding procurement of other raw-materials like plastic lamination for retail pouches Supari Kattha Tobacco etc. the duty demand is not sustainable. - for making such a presumption of fact under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act which would shift the burden of proof to the assessee there must be cogent and concrete evidence of the fact of un-accounted receipt of any one or more of the principal raw-materials or evidence of un-accounted consumption of the principal raw-materials which admittedly had been received. Merely on the basis of the fact that there was no production of Shimla 2-in-1 Pan Masala during Sept. 01 to Dec. 01 and during this period only 21, 800 outer pouches for Shimla Gutkha had been used it cannot be presumed that 52, 800 outer pouches for Shimla Gutkha and 16000 outer pouches for 2-in-1 Shimla Pan Masala had been used in the manufacture of un-accounted Shimla Gutkha and Shimla 2-in-1 Pan Masala which had been cleared clandestinely without payment of duty as their consumption for accounted production during August 2001 has not been ruled out. - Decided against Revenue.
|