TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 18,34,560/- has been confirmed against the appellant No. 1, M/s. Veer Bahadur Products, which is a proprietorship concern of appellant No. 4, on account of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods, namely, Shri Ram Chhap Mainpuri Tobacco-Gutkha, after procuring huge quantity of supari, tobacco, pouches, piperment, without bills from appellant No. 3, who is a Proprietor of the firm, appellant No. 2, whereas penalties have been imposed on all other appellants. The confiscation of the goods recovered from the premises of the appellants have also been ordered. 3. The learned counsel has contended that there is no cogent and tangible evidence on record to prove the manufacture and clandestine removal of the goods by appellants No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4, in the name of firm, appellant No. 1, during the period in dispute, had been based on the ground that sale of raw material by her husband as well as her attorney, appellant No. 4, to different persons in the market was fictitious and in fact the entire quantity of raw material i.e. supari/tobacco was utilized by the appellant No. 4 in the manufacture of Gutka, which she cleared in a clandestine manner. But, we find that there is no cogent convincing evidence \ to substantiate these allegations. Appellant No. 3, in his statement had claimed that the raw material which was seized from the premises detailed above, and that raw material included cut supari and tobacco contained in the boxes, and also the mixture of both which too was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not lead to conclusion that the appellants had indulged in the clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods (Gutka), for want of any evidence to prove the actual production and clearance of the goods in a clandestine manner by them. The dual capacity of appellant No. 3, one as a trader carrying out trading activity in the name of firm, appellant No. 2, and another as husband and authorized signatory of his wife, appellant No. 4, for looking after the manufacturing activity of her firm No. 1 also, could not be made basis to conclude that there was clandestine manufacture and removal of goods without payment of duty by them. No statement of any worker working in the manufacturing unit of the firm, appellant No. 1, was recorded. Stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
