Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (2) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... statement. Therefore, the said statement cannot be the basis of confirmation of demand against the appellants. Moreover, department has not relied on the said statement. There is no corroboration of RRs with any tangible evidence to allege that appellants have cleared goods clandestinely in the guise of naswar on the strength of RRs recovered from railways on 09.04.2012. Therefore, impugned proceedings are not sustainable against the appellants. Moreover, Revenue has exonerated Shri Purshottam Kumar against whom penalty has been imposed by the Adjudicating Authority observing that his name does appear on few RRs covering clandestine transaction but there has not been any other evidence or statement that would substantiate his role in clande .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case has been booked against the appellant vide show cause notice dated 18.08.2011 on the basis of 46 forwarding notes / RRs recovered from Railways on 09.04.2010 wherein the consigner's name is shown as Shri Purshottam Kumar, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Shri Subhash Kumar, Shri Prem Kumar, Shri Nirmal Kumar, Shri Ramesh Kumar, Shri Mahesh Kumar, Shri Satish Kumar, etc. It was also alleged in the show cause notice that the RR no. 789384 dated 24.11.2007 is also recovered during the investigation. The show cause notice also having reliance on the statement of Shri Sanjeev Kumar one of the appellants before me dated 01.12.2007 and 17.07.2009. The show cause notice was adjudicated. Demand of duty was confirmed against the Shri J .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt was recorded in police custody and same cannot be relied upon. He further submits that 46 RRs recovered from the Railways are showing various consignees and no investigation has been conducted who has sent the goods and who are the consignee for those goods? No statement at the end of consignee have been recorded to ascertain the truth. In fact, in stray RRs the name of Shri Purshottam Kumar and Shri Sanjeev Kumar have been mentioned but no question have been made to the appellants on the basis of those RRs recovered from railways. Therefore, he submits that statement of Shri Sanjeev Kumar have no relevance to the facts of this case. He further submits that in the impugned proceedings RR no. 789384 dated 24.11.2007 has been relied but no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s and same is not subject matter of the 46 RRs on the basis of which case has been made against the appellants. I also find that these 46 RRs have given different name of the consigners and different name of the consignees. No investigation has been conducted from the consignees in the case of these 46 RRs. The statement of Shri Sanjeev Kumar recorded on 01.12.2007 cannot be relied upon as on the said day Shri Sanjeev Kumar was in police custody and not in the custody of the Departmental officers. Therefore, said statement cannot be said to be recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act 1944. The statement dated 17.07.2009 does not reveal any inculcatory statement. Therefore, the said statement cannot be the basis of confirmation of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates