TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re seized. During the course of investigations Shri Rajesh Agarwal, partner of M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm submitted that the said imported raw material has been purchased by them from M/s. Kaiser Marbles and produced the documents relating to the purchase of the said materials in December 1994. Based upon the above information enquiries were made from M/s. Kaiser Marbles who in their statement dt. 27-4-1995 admitted having sold the material to the appellants and also disclosed that the said material was purchased by them from M/s. Kamal Co., Guwahati, who had imported the consignment under bill of entry dt. 6-7-1994. Copies of invoice, packing list, bill of lading number and bill of entry etc. were produced by them. It was also disclosed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rupees seventy five thousand), Rs. 56,000/- (Rupees fifty six thousand) and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm, Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Shri Rajesh Agarwal and Smt. Sukuntala Agarwal respectively. 2.4 On an appeal against the above order the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order. Hence the present appeal. 3. I have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR for the Revenue and Shri Aftab Ahmed, ld. Advocate for the respondents. 4. As regards the fax message, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under :- 5.4 It is observed prima facie that there is no customs reference No. on the basis of which the above response has been received. The designation of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fax message cannot be treated as a reliable document if we go by the preposition of the Apex Court reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) referred to by the appellants as at para 4.1 hereinabove. The Hon'ble CEGAT Mumbai in the case of Chandrakant II. Sanghvi v. CC, Sheva reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 788 (Tribuna1) have also observed that "fax message from supplier of the machine not bearing any signature of authorised person of that company nor bearing the address of the recipient - it is not authenticated by any means - such document does not legally constitute acceptable evidence - it has to be viewed with utmost caution in the light of the fact that it was given to the department by informer". 5.5 Further, on a perusal of fax mess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of unauthenticated/unreliable fax message received through unspecified channels. 5. On a perusal of the above observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) I do not find any infirmity in the same. The Revenue's entire case is relied upon the fax message and as observed by the Commissioner, the same has not been received from Korea Petrochemicals Ind. Co., but is said to have been sent by one C.W. Lee. In any case I find that M/s. Kaiser Marbles have confirmed having sold the goods to the appellant and having bought the same from M/s. Kamal Co. Neither M/s. Kaiser Marbles nor M/s. Kamal Co. have been made parties to the present proceedings. M/s. Kamal Co., who have originally imported the goods were in the best position to explain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
