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

2018 (5) TMI 974

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its in the claim of the appellant that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle at the material time when alleged evasion of excise duty happened. Another allegation is that the appellant had supplied the packing machines to the main noticee - Held that: - the assertion of Revenue made to the effect that the appellant had passed money and machines for purchase of D.G. Sets and manufacture of gutka through Shri Javed cannot be sustained - Revenue has not been able to ascertain the identity of Shri Javed and the appellant has denied any knowledge of any person by the name of ‘Javed’. The appellant has also denied given any money or machines to Shri Javed - this ground against appellant also fails. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce is based on the statement of various persons and there is no hard evidence against the appellant. He pointed out that the main noticee was only a domestic help working for the appellant much before he got engaged in these activity of manufacture of Gutka. He further argued that the main noticee Shri Kantilal B. Mohite had retracted his statement twice. He pointed out that in one of his statement, Shri Kantilal B. Mohite had stated that Shri Javed had provided money to the main noticee for the purchase of generator and the same was financed by the appellant. He argued that there is no evidence to substantiate the said claim and in the absence of any evidence no such conclusion can be reached especially in the circumstances when his statem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the impugned order ignores the said letter and relies on the earlier letter dated 12.11.2009 where Shri Suhas Khabiya, the appellant, has been shown as registered owner. He further argued that it was concluded that the appellant is the registered owner on the basis of the statement of the main noticee dated 27.11.2009. Further the said main noticee has retracted the statement dated 19.12.2009 as has been recorded in the impugned order (para 7). He further pointed out that in the proceeding before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay seeking pre-arrest bail, the Hon ble High Court had recorded in para 6 of the said order that the said jeep was sold by the appellant to the main noticee Shri Kantilal B. Mohite. 2.3 In these circumstances, L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... htra Motor Vehicle Department, Pune, produced by the appellant shows Shri Kantilal B. Mohite, the main noticee, is the owner of MH12 BG3268 having chassis No MA1NV2ABA12M 22644 with effect from 23.3.2009. The said record also shows that the previous owner was the appellant. The said record also shows the transfer date as 23.03.2009. The said report was generated on 1st July 2017. It is seen that the same fact was asserted by Shri Suhas S Khabia in his statement dated 16.12.2009. At the time of recording the statement, the appellant has submitted a letter from Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Department, Pune dated 18th November 2009 (page 135 of the paper book) wherein Shri Kantilal B. Mohite, the main noticee has been shown as the registered owne .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 736. (b) CC v. Ranjit Ghosh Alias Rana Ghosh 1998 (104) ELT 349. (c) Sunil Ghosh v. CC 2003 (162) ELT 830. 4.2 The statements of the main noticee Shri Kantilal B. Mohite were retracted by affidavits which were notarized and a letter to the effect of such retraction was also given to the Superintendent of Central Excise on 31.12.2009. 4.3 In these circumstances, the assertion of Revenue made to the effect that the appellant had passed money and machines for purchase of D.G. Sets and manufacture of gutka through Shri Javed cannot be sustained. Revenue has not been able to ascertain the identity of Shri Javed and the appellant has denied any knowledge of any person by the name of Javed . The appellant has also denied g .....

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