2004 (7) TMI 476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondent. [Order]. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the part of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original regarding confiscation of the goods intercepted in two trucks and imposition of the penalties on the respondents. 2. The learned JDR has contended that in the face of the statements of the truck driver and a cleaner regard .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and cleaner of another truck disclosed to the Central Excise Officers that earlier to this they had also transported the goods on the basis of these very gate passes. But there is nothing on the record to suggest if any evidence was collected during the investigation by the Officers for seeking corroboration to their statements. The goods found in the truck at the time of interception were covere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the cleaner of the trucks, there is not an iota of evidence on record to prove that the goods were removed twice by the respondents on the strength of the gate passes dated 3-12-1992. Even the alleged purchasers of those goods was never contacted/questioned by the officers. Therefore, their statements for want of corroborative evidence, had been rightly ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals). Sin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X