9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Shri Maurya. However, the appellate authority has rejected the stand of Shri Ram Narain Maurya on the ground that his name was not disclosed by the driver on the spot. - Admittedly M/s. M M Marketing is dealing with the goods manufactured by Phoolchand and Shri Ram Narain Maurya was a sales man. The goods sold by M/s. M M Marketing to Shri Ram Narain Maurya are covered by a regular bills issued by M/s. MM Marketing. There is no direct evidence of clearance of the goods from the factory of M/s. Phoolchand Sales Corporation whereas on the contrary, the ledgers produced by M/s. M M Marketing clearly show the goods in question as also sale of same to Shri Maurya. Charges of clandestine removal are required to be proved by positive evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Sales Corporation is engaged in the manufacture of Phool chand Super Brand gutkha falling under Chapter heading 2404.49. The patrolling officers intercepted one truck on 1.9.2004 at Gorakhpur, which was carrying 40 gunny bags of the said gutkha. However, the driver of the truck can produce invoice for only 10 bags in favour of one M/s. Priyadarshi Stores, Gorakhpur. Inasmuch as the driver could not produce any licit documents for balance 30 bags, Revenue entertained a view that same were cleared by the said appellant without payment of duty. 3. In a follow up action the premises of manufacturing unit was visited and various checks were conducted. Two gunny bags of Phool chand Super Brand having value of Rs.9100/- and one Gunny ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 844-846/2010 -SM(BR) dated 21.7.2010. The impugned order stand passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in denovo proceedings. 6. The issue required to be decided in the present case is as to whether 30 bags of Gutkha which were found loaded in the intercepted truck were cleared by the manufacturing unit M/s. Phoolchand Sales Corporation without payment of duty. I find that immediately after the seizure one Shri Ram Narain Maurya claimed the ownership of the said bags and also produced on record invoice dated 30.8.2004 and issued by M M Marketing, Lucknow. The goods were also released provisionally to said Shri Maurya. However, the appellate authority has rejected the stand of Shri Ram Narain Maurya on the ground that his name was not d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
