9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Anant Vijay, Advocate for Appellant Shri Anupam Kumar Tiwari, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER PER: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR Heard on miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application is for taking into consideration the Final Order No.71016-71020/2019 dated 21 May, 2019 for deciding the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the sides, I take up the present appeal for decision. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the goods in question which were seized from the premises on 12 September, 2014 were not marketable and therefore, not manufactured. He has submitted that the seized goods were handed over to him under supurdnama and are still lying with him and the same are of no us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said final order that as held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmarth Steel Iron Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2010 (26) E.L.T. 541 (All.) that the statements of such persons who has not been offered for cross-examination cannot be considered as evidence and by applying the ratio of said ruling the evidences on the basis of which learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld confiscatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amples should have been sent to CRCL to seek report as to whether the same were chewing tobacco. Further, by applying the ruling by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmarth Steel Iron Pvt. Ltd (supra) the statements of various persons on the basis of which learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods were chewing tobacco are not admissible evidence since the said persons were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
