9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agraph 6 to the effect that the assessee had produced purchase vouchers in relation to the diamonds in question, but the Commissioner has failed to verify the genuineness of those vouchers. However, perusal of paragraph Nos.36 & 37 of the order in original clearly shows that the Commissioner had in fact considered the materials placed before him and also recorded a finding on those materials. Since the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the facts on record, the order of the CESTAT is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for denovo consideration. 3. The facts of the case are as under: 3.1. Neeta Prakash Modi - the appellant has filed this appeal against the order confirming absolute confisca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed diamonds is illegal and without any basis of law. He further submitted that diamonds were purchased by Shri Prakash Modi were bona fide purchases. He further submitted that at the time of seizure, Shri Prakash Modi retracted inculpatory statements within a week s period of time and also filed copies of purchase documents and application of sales tax registration, Import and Export Code No., RBI Code No., before issuance of the show cause notice itself. He today also produced before us the purchase register along with purchase vouchers in original. It is the contention of the appellant that, at the time of seizure of the impugned diamonds, Shri Prakash Modi produced all the relevant documents and no investigation has been conducted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the seized diamonds. Moreover, the statements of Shri Prakash Modi was corroborated by the other co-noticees, whose statements were also recorded at the time of seizure. Further, the purchase vouchers were not provided at the time of seizure and the same were showing only the name of the person from whom the diamonds were procured but, address and identification marks were not given. Therefore, investigation could not be done to that effect. In view of these facts, diamonds are liable for absolute confiscation and were to be upheld. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides and further observed that the matter was heard by this Tribunal and the appeal was allowed vide order No. A/128/10/CSTB/C-II dated 11/03/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not possible for us to give a finding as to whether the purchases were really bona fide or not and this finding is required to be recorded by the adjudicating authority. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the jurisdictional Commissioner to record a specific finding, on the basis of the documents produced by the appellant, as to whether the purchases of diamonds seized from Mr. Prakash Modi on 18.1.1991 were bona fide or not. Fresh orders are to be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to Mrs. Neeta P. Modi. Since this is a sixteen-year old case, we direct that the proceedings be completed by the Commissioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the documents i.e. cash vouchers, statement of purchase and pages 1 to 11 of purchase register were first time submitted at the time of hearing on 19.02.2008. I find that the cash vouchers 40 in Nos. were issued by the Noticee himself. The said vouchers were issued to 6 difference persons. It is seen that all the above said vouchers do not have the addresses of the suppliers. It is impossible to verify the genuineness of the said payment vouchers only on the basis of name. All the documents are non verifiable and prepared by the Noticee. The Noticee had ensured not to mention the address of the seller in the said cash vouchers/payment slips so as it could not be verified. At the time of hearing on 19.02.2008, Smt. Neeta P. Modi express ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of verifiable documents. 9. On analysing the contents of paragraph 36 and 37 of the impugned order it is a clear cut finding of the Commissioner that the documents have been produced for the first time on 19/02/2008 which is factually incorrect in view of the remand order dated 06/09/2007 of this Tribunal. Therefore, the contents of paragraphs 36 and 37 have no evidential value and cannot be relied upon. Further, we find that the purchase documents have been produced by Shri Prakash Modi in reply to the show cause notice, no effort was made by the adjudicating authority to verify the correctness of the said documents and no enquiry was made from Shri Prakash Modi with regard to documents, which otherwise prove that the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
