Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 524 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture and removal - copper wire - third party evidence - Held that:- There was a complete admission on the part of the appellant about the documents as were seized by the Department from premises of M/s.Hind Metals and from his own premises and were put to the appellant, that all those pertains to his business and to the companies with whom he has business relations. Despite the retraction of Mr. Alok Aggarwal that too vide a letter dated 19 June, 2012, there has been three more subsequent statements acknowledging the correctness about the goods seized to be meant for clandestine removal and for the documents recovered from residential and factory premises to be related to his company. Thus, there seems no reason for rejecting the 4 statements acknowledging guilt in the light of one letter of retraction - There is sufficient corroboration qua the document recovered from the cabin of the vehicle which was found parked in the factory premises of the appellant at the time of raid. There is sufficient corroboration to the correctness of the contents thereof in the statement of the driver of the said vehicle itself with simultaneous corroboration from the statement of the worker of appellant namely Mr.Jagat Singh that Mr. Subash Yadav was the driver of the said vehicle who used to deliver goods from appellant’s factory at the instance of the appellant. The said vehicle was seized from the factory of the appellant loaded with material but with no bill for the same. There is a clear admission for the alleged clandestine removal by the appellant, who could not produce any evidence on record to prove his innocence. Oral grounds of defence could not be corroborated by any documentary evidence - Since the clandestine removal of metal wires stands established on record and there can be no other objective for the same except, the evasion of duty, the penalty as imposed is also not found to have any infirmity. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|