9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Acquittal of Respondents by Sub-Magistrate challenged by Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Allegation of evasion of duty under Section 9(b) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Seizure of matches from lumber room without proper documentation and serial numbers. Hostile witnesses and conflicting statements by Respondents. Lack of evidence establishing Respondents' exclusive occupation of the premises. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise against the acquittal of the Respondents by the Sub-Magistrate. The case involves allegations of evasion of duty under Section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Respondents, a father and son, are associated with a match factory holding a valid license. Matches were seized from a lumber room without proper documentation and serial numbers, raising suspicions of unauthorized storage and removal. Witnesses, including Excise Officers and the Respondents, provided conflicting statements during the trial. The Superintendent of Central Excise, along with his officers, inspected the match factory and found matches stored in the lumber room, allegedly under the control of the second Respondent. Despite the seizure and a complaint filed by the Superintendent, witnesses turned hostile during the trial. The first Respondent claimed ignorance of the seizure, while the second Respondent denied involvement and stated that the matches seized were not manufactured in their factory. The Sub-Magistrate's judgment was criticized for inadequate reasoning in acquitting the Respondents. The Magistrate's reliance on hostile witnesses and doubts raised by the Respondents was deemed unjustified. While the matches were seized and evidence pointed to unauthorized storage, the exclusive occupation of the premises by the Respondents was not conclusively established. The statement obtained from the second Respondent lacked incriminating admissions and suggested a promise of non-action in exchange for cooperation, potentially exonerating the Respondents. Despite the shortcomings in the Sub-Magistrate's judgment, the High Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the acquittal of the Respondents. The lack of concrete evidence establishing the Respondents' exclusive occupation of the premises and the nature of the statement obtained from the second Respondent contributed to the decision not to overturn the acquittal. The judgment highlights the importance of substantiated evidence and legal standards in cases of alleged duty evasion and unauthorized storage of goods.
|
