9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl. Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA : The challenge in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs. 1.25 Crores imposed upon the appellant in terms of the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. 2. As per facts on record, the Police officers searched residential premises of one Shri Sanjay Rathore on 3 August 2011. Dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Shri Subash Chandra on 3 January 2012 and 4 May 2012. In both the said statements, the appellant deposed that he has got nothing to do with the Gutkha being manufactured by Shri Sanjay Rathore and he was a small time trader of matches, Biris, tea leaves, mosquito coil etc.. He denied supplying any loose Gutkha or packing material to Shri Sanjay Rathore. 5. Revenue further made enquiry from one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Only the appeal filed by Shri Subash Chandra challenging imposition of penalty upon him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is being taken up for final disposal. 9. After hearing the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned orders we find that the Commissioner has not considered the present appellant as the manufacturer of Pan Masala/Gutkha. The adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id statements cannot be admitted as an evidence. If the said two statements are taken out of consideration, nothing survives with the Revenue so as to hold against the appellant. Otherwise also it is well settled law and does not require support of any precedent decisions to conclude that the oral statements, by themselves, cannot be relied upon, unless there is documentary corroborative material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
