TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Shri. M.P Joshi, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. M Suresh, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER The case of the department is that appellant M/s. Madhav Iron Casting Pvt Ltd received 51.715 MT of M.S. ingots clandestinely from M/s. Silver Star and presumed that the appellant have manufactured and cleared excisable goods out of alleged receipt of M.S. Ingots. Entire case is based on the following evidence such as Statements of Shri. Abdul Razzak Mundrawal, Director of M/s. Madhav Iron, Shri. Tayabibhai Bharmal the Directors of M/s. Silver Star, Shri. Sayad Hussain Chaoudhery, Shri. Shantaram Namdev Yadav and weighment slips containing details of clandestinely removed M.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Razzak Mundrawal is hearsay statement and same cannot be accepted in light of judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel. As regard the appellant is concerned the only statement is of Shri. Abdul Razzak Mundrawal who is present director of the appellant company which is based on the version of Shri. Gupta who was the Director at the relevant time. However, department has not taken any pain to record the statement of Shri. Gupta. In the absence of statement of Shri. Gupta, the statement of Shri. Abdul Razzak Mundrawal is evidence of hearsay which is not admissible in the court of law. All other statements and records related to M/s. Silver star being 3 rd party evidence cannot be used against the appellant. In the judgments cited by the Ld. Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is for imposition of penalty in the present proceedings. We find that the same had been rightly set aside by the first appellate authority. We do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal of the Revenue. In case of Sunil Ghosh(Supra) this Tribunal held: 7.1 The extracts of the above statements of various persons as reproduced above show that the name of Shri Sunil Ghosh had been taken by all these persons based upon the information given to them by a third person. Nobody has said that they have direct information about Shri Sunil Ghosh being the owner of the goods. As rightly argued by Shri K.P. Dey, learned Advocate for the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
