9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director of M/s. Madhav Iron, Shri. Tayabibhai Bharmal the Directors of M/s. Silver Star, Shri. Sayad Hussain Chaoudhery, Shri. Shantaram Namdev Yadav and weighment slips containing details of clandestinely removed M.S. ingots. All the above witnesses have admitted the clandestine removal of 51.715 MT M.S. ingots to M/s. Madhav Iron & Casting Pvt Ltd. Accordingly, demand was confirmed and Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) had upheld the demand therefore appellant is before me. 2. Shri. M.P. Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the appellant mainly submits that at the time when this clandestinely removed goods alleged to have received by the appellant, the present management was not there as this unit was taken over from the earlier Director, Shri. Gupta by pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble in the court of law. All other statements and records related to M/s. Silver star being 3rd party evidence cannot be used against the appellant. In the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel, in case of B.N. Jadeja(Supra) held: 11. Whatever Shantigar and Meraman have stated before the oms officers inculpating the appellant being based solely on what was allegedly told to them by constable Jivabhai, is more in the nature of hearsay evidence and not based on any personal knowledge. It is the basic fundamental of the law that the hearsay evidence can never be taken into consideration, much less for basing any conclusion. The same at the best can provide a corroborative evidence, if the person who made such a statement also testifies to the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they have direct information about Shri Sunil Ghosh being the owner of the goods. As rightly argued by Shri K.P. Dey, learned Advocate for the appellant that such statements which, in turn, are based upon the information given by the other person, would come in the category of hearsay evidence. There is no corroboration come from any independent source. Such hearsay evidence is a weak evidence for holding the appellant guilty in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt, I set aside the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs) upon the appellant and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to him. In view of the above judgments it is observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
