9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) and 9AA punishable under Section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act on a trial held by the Court of Economic Offences, Bangalore. 3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under : The respondent No. 1-Company is a manufacturer of Shoe Adhesive Gum, whereas, the other respondents are its Directors and Drawing Manager. On the allegation that the respondents have not paid the excise duty in respect of the sales made for the year from 1990 to 1995, an enquiry was held and in the said enquiry documents were collected for recording the statements of PWs.4 and 5 and it is alleged that a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- was ordered. The appellant Deputy Commissioner for Central Excise has filed a private complaint under Section 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and order of the trial Court and it is his specific submission that except the invoices, there is no material on record to prove the sale of Shoe Adhesive Gum by the respondents and in the absence of any material, the trial Court was justified in granting the order of acquittal. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondents are the persons who are manufacturing Shoe Adhesive Gum and it is the case of the appellant that for the period from 1990 to 1995 the respondents have not paid the excise duty and therefore are responsible for non-payment and the conviction could have been granted. 8. It is relevant to note that to prove the fact regarding non-payment of excise du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n rejected in the beginning itself. It is relevant to note that even during the course of accepting the document, the objections were raised by the respondents and these invoices were accepted subject to production of original. No effort has been made by the appellant even to produce the originals. In the course of trial or subsequent to the trial, originals have not been produced by the respondents. So, apart from Ex. P14 and the invoices aforesaid, there is no other material on record to establish that the respondents have sold Shoe Adhesive Gum for the period from 1990 to 1995 and it is for this reason that the trial Court has granted an order of acquittal. On the basis of the audit report fine was collected and the order collecting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343 in the case of Bhoolchand And Another v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Another. The principle aforesaid relies to non-production of the document and not in respect of the photocopy of the document. Therefore, the principle is not applicable. 12. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. The Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with such orders. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the trial Court cannot be disturbed. Perusal of the material placed on record in the context of the principle referred to supra, I am of the opinion that the appellant has not made out any grounds to warrant interference in the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. 13. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
