1975 (12) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and oral. The substantive submission is that there was no evidence with the Central Excise Officers, who had reported the case against the appellant unit that their Kinari Bazar firm had received the subject wires and cables from their factory at Sita Ram Bazar. They also state that the party of the Central Excise Officers had resumed 12 purchase vouchers and that the Kinari Bazar firm had purcha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly they may be different. The contention of the appellant is that the Central Excise Officers have no evidence to prove that Kinari Bazar firm received the subject coils from their factory at Sita Ram Bazar. Since the two firms are for practical purposes the same, the case against the appellant unit was on reasonable grounds of suspicion. I further observe that these suspicions were confirmed when .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X