9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants has pleaded that the various penalties levied on the appellants are as under : Sl. Appeal No. Penalty Value of goods Status of the person 1. E/1817/97 25,000/- 37,500/- Dealer 2. E/1818/97 25,000/- nil Brother in law concerned with packing of the goods 3. E/1819/97 25,000/- 77,000/- Dealer 4. E/1820/97 25,000/- 440/- Bunk shop owner 5. E/1821/97 25,000/- Nil Owner Raj Trading Co. 6. E/1822/97 25,000/- 800/- Bunk shop owner 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has pleaded th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a statement by Neelamarthandan. He has stated that the biris being sent were non-duty paid. He has pleaded that taking into consideration therefore, the background and the quantum of biris which were purchased by them and also they have not inculpated themselves, the charge of abetment under Rule 209A does not survive. 3. Shri Rama Rao, the learned DR for the department has pleaded that both these appellants have admitted the fact that they had torn off the bills received by them. He has pleaded that no doubt in specific terms there is nothing to show that they had the knowledge that the biris received by them were non-duty paid but the very fact that they torn off the bills shows their guilt mind. 4. I have considered the pleas ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were retracted subsequently. There is a delay of 20 days in the retraction. As the learned DR for the department has rightly pointed out it is for the maker of the statement to establish that he has given the statement under coercion. This aspect has not been brought out by the appellants. Further it is seen from the original statements that the appellants have admitted to have not maintained any proper account as to the quantum of biris which were received by them when they should have done so to show the actual purchase and sale. The appellants have also stated that they did so to help Neelamarthandan. So far as the appellants are concerned, there is no obligation cast on them to maintain any Central Excise registers. That they did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from him. He has pleaded that in the statement made by the appellant, he has stated that he has made sales to independent people and he had record in respect of the sales. He has pleaded that in the main appeal when it was heard, the appellant company has been given the benefit of doubt in respect of transaction with Raj Trading Co. In this connection he referred to para 6 of the order cited supra which is reproduced below for convenience of reference : 6. We have considered the submissions. We find that the basis as per Annex-I made in the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the original statement of the appellant is contradicted by the original statement given by the proprietor of M/s. Raj Trading Co. in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that what is stated in the order is the nature of the transaction of Raj Trading Co. was tested for their veracity. I observe that once the finding has been entered giving benefit of doubt to the appellants in respect of the dealing with particular individuals in the main appeal, the person cannot be held guilty for having contravened or abetted with reference to that act. Taking into consideration therefore, the facts and circumstances, he has to be given the benefit of doubt and I set aside the penalty on appellant in Appeal No. E/1821/97 pertaining to owner of Raj Trading. 19. So far as appellant D. Andrews (E/1818/97) is concerned, he is the brother-in-law of Neelamarthandan. He is the one who was concerned with packing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
