9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3rd party records (mainly transporter‟s records) and the statements of the various persons being the staff of the transporters, the authorised persons of the 3 manufacturers, Mr. Alok Krishna Gupta (Dealer/Purchaser), Railway Booking Agent and his associates and some of the buyers/re-sellers of the goods, manufactured by the 3 appellant manufacturers. HELD THAT:- It is the stand of the 3 appellant manufacturers that they have been selling their goods throughout ex factory, at ex factory price. It is the buyer, who after taking delivery, arranges for the transportation themselves. Under the admitted facts, the 3 appellant manufacturers are neither the consignor nor the consignee, in any of the third party transporter‟s records, including the Railways. Almost all the persons, whose statements have been relied upon, have either retracted their statements, which were recorded during investigation and/or the veracity of their statements did not stand the test of cross examination during the adjudication proceedings. The ld. Commissioner has noted in para -50 of the impugned order, that all the respective persons have retracted from the revelation /acceptance made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied by the Railways are not reliable as per the provisions of Section 36 A of the Central Excise Act, as no presumption against the appellant manufacturer is available to the Revenue. We further observe that 3rd party evidence at best is a good ground for suspicion, but in absence of corroboration with the records, etc. of the appellant manufacturer(s), the demand of duty cannot be sustained - Similarly, the demand confirmed for alleged clandestine clearance through Bihar Carrying Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Trimurti Roadlines (based on third party documents and statements) are also held to be unsustainable and accordingly are set aside. Proposed demand of duty of Rs.5.37 Crores (appox.) is concerned on the allegation of unaccounted receipt of packing materials from M/s Vinayak Ultraflex - HELD THAT:- The ld. Commissioner has observed that suspicion howsoever strong cannot be the proof of clandestine removal, in absence of corroborative evidence. It has been held in the impugned order that the basic allegation of receipt of unaccounted inputs by M/s. Vinayak Ultraflex does not stand, particularly in view of the report of the Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, and thus, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch oral evidences are not sufficient for confirmation of the charge of clandestine removal in absence of any corroboration, by way of some documentary evidence of the appellant - manufacturers. As the demand(s) of duty and penalty have been set aside, against all the three manufacturers of Sir Brand‟ Gutkha and Pan Masala, we set aside the penalties imposed on all the co-accused - Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 70503, 70504, 70505, 70506, 70507, 70508, 70509, 70510, 70511, 70512, 70513, 70514, 70515, 70516, 70517, 70518, 70519, 70520, 70521, 70522, 70523, 70524, 70525, 70526, 70527, 70528, 70529, 70530, 70531 of 2020 AND OTHERS. - FINAL ORDER NOS.- 70006-70059/2022 - Dated:- 18-1-2022 - Excise Appeal No. 70532, 70533, 70534, 70535, 70536, 70537, 70538, 70539, 70540, 70541, 70542 of 2020, 70020, 70021, 70022, 70023, 70024, 70025, 70026, 70027, 70028, 70029, 70031, 70081, 70082, 70083 OF 2021 M/s Shankar Enterprises, M/s Seema Enterprises, M/s Vinayak Ultraflex Pvt Ltd, M/s Aanand Sales, M/s Bee Gee Projects India Pvt Ltd, M/s Prateek International, Sri Prakash Agarwal, Shiv Kumar Paliwal, M/s Vinod and Co, Alok Krishna Gupta, M/s Chetan Enterprises, M/s Purv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11AB Cenvat demanded along with applicable interest u/s 11AB r/w Rule 14 Penalty imposed 1 E/70503/2020- EX[DB] Raghunath International Ltd. 250,410,860 - 250,410,860 2 E/70505/2020- EX[DB] Seema Enterprises 88,848,828 137,668 88,986,496 3 E/70504/2020- EX[DB] Shankar Enterprises 5,346,956 28,090 5,375,046 4 E/70506/2020- EX[DB] Vinayak ultraflex Pvt. Ltd. 2,760,134 - 3,760,134 5 E/70510/2020- EX[DB] Shri Prakash Agarwal - - 50,000,000 6 E/70020/2021- EX[DB] Rajesh Agarwal - - 10,000,000 7 E/70513/2020- EX[DB] Alok Kr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,000,000 23 E/70029/2021- EX[DB] Abhishek Sales, Lucknow - - 1,000,000 24 E/70514/2020- EX[DB] Chetan Enterprise, Patna - - 1,000,000 25 E/70520/2020- EX[DB] Shiv Babu Chaurasia, Bhadoi - - 1,000,000 26 E/70519/2020- EX[DB] Mohan Lal and Sons, Mirzapur - - 1,000,000 27 E/70518/2020- EX[DB] D S Enterprise, Chopan - - 1,000,000 28 E/70523/2020- EX[DB] S K Supply, Gopiganj - - 1,000,000 29 E/70515/2020- EX[DB] Purvanchal General Store, Yusufpur - - 1,000,000 30 E/700 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 500,000 45 E/70026/2021- EX[DB] Keyman Laminators - 1,000,000 46 E/70511/2020- EX[DB] Shiv Kumar Paliwal - - 500,000 47 E/70092/2021- EX[DB] Siddharth Gupta - - 500,000 48 E/70507/2020- EX[DB] Anand Sales - - 1,000,000 49 E/70088/2021- EX[DB] Swetanshu Dwivedi - - 500,000 50 E/70512/2020- EX[DB] Vinod and Co. - - 1,000,000 51 E/70509/2020- EX[DB] Prateek International - - 1,000,000 52 E/70030/2021- EX[DB] Mayur International - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abhishek Sales - - 50,000.00 5 E/70090/2021- EX[DB] Nath and Co, Varanasi - - 100,000.00 S No. Order in respect of Demand cum-scn issued vide C No.121/INT/DGCEI/HQ/07/9033-40 dated 07.11.2008 Duty demanded Redemption fine Penalty imposed 6 E/70504/2020- EX[DB] Shankar Enterprises 2,160,745.00 2,250,000.00 2,160,745.00 7 E/70505/2020- EX[DB] Seema Enterprises 340,019.00 200,000.00 340,019.00 8 E/70026/2021- EX[DB] Keyman Laminators 8,501.00 12,000.00 8,501.00 9 E/70028/2021- EX[DB] Bihar Carrying Co. - - 500,000.00 2. The appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 1.12.07 M/s Nath Co., 1st Floor, above M/s Abhishek Building Materials, Lehartara Crossing, Varasasi. Sir Mini Black Gutkha 29 bags and 80 packets (4720 x 65 pouches) Rs.1/- 306800/- 104281/- 5 09.05.08 M/s Shankar Enterprises, 84/12, Fazal Ganj Indl. Area, Kanpur. Mini Black Gutkha 3877.9 kgs. (190 Bags) Rs.1/- 1938950/- 659049/- Sir Gold Finest Gutkha -2404.48 Kgs. (68 bags) Rs.1/ 1202240/- 408641/- Mini Sir Sada -351.68 Kgs. (16 Bags) Rs.1/ 175840/- 43612/- 2 gms. current Gutkha 1710.28 kgs. (92 bags) Rs.1/ 855140 290662/- Sir 1000 Black Gutkha 913.92 kgs. (24 bags) Rs.1/ 456960/- 155321/- Betal Nuts -605 kgs. Not applicable 27225/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that after closure of the production (since Oct., 2007), in RIL, they were only doing betel nut cutting work, on job work basis for M/s Seema Enterprises. The detained goods were seized vide seizure memo dated 3.4.2008. 5. During the search at M/s Shankar Enterprises on 9.5.2008, physical stock was taken in presence of Mr. Sunil Gupta, Clerk of the factory, wherein the finished goods of Sir Brand‟ Gutka and raw materials were found over and above the quantity as per RG-I Register (RUD), Form-IV (RUD-32) Register. Upon enquiry, Mr. Sushil Gupta, Clerk, inter alia, stated that he was working for M/s Shankar Enterprises since April, 2008, and prior to April, 2008, he was working with M/s Seema Enterprises, and looking after the despatch for both M/s Seema Enterprises and M/s. Shankar Enterprises. It appeared to Revenue that the stock of finished goods found in excess was due to showing less production in their RG-I Register, than the actual production. Thus, they were evading payment of duty by clandestine removal(s) of the goods without bills and without payment of duty, and it further appeared to Revenue that they were making entries in the RG-I Register and preparing p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.5.2008, the search was also made at the premises of the transporter- M/s Bihar Carrying Co. Pvt. Ltd. (BCC), Transport Nagar, Kanpur 96 bags of Sir Brand‟ Gutka were found for which the Manager of Transport, Mr. U. S. Awasthi could not provide copy of the bills/invoice pertaining to the same. On verification of the name of the manufacturer-as printed on the pouches, it appeared that 57 bags of Sir Brand Gold Silk‟ were manufactured by M/s Seema Enterprises and 39 bags were manufactured by M/s Shankar, and the same were seized under Panchnama, as it appeared to Revenue that these bags have been cleared from the factory of the appellants-manufacturer(s) without payment of duty. 9. Further, Mr. Shushil Gupta, Clerk of assessee in his statement dated 9.5.2008 admitted that he has dispatched 57 bags and 39 bags of Sir Brand Gutka from M/s Seema Enterprises and M/s Shankar respectively, to M/s Bihar Carrying Co. Pvt. Ltd. 10. On the basis of loading registers of BCC for the period April, 2006 to November, 2006, JST slips were found mentioned in the goods manifest and private diary pads, showing transportation of gutka to Ranchi and other destinations. Consolidated c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d which quantified that M/s Trimurti Roadlines, Kanpur had transported 49,420 bags of Sir Brand Gutkha/ Pan Masala during the period from April'2005 to March'2008, which were cleared clandestinely without issuing bills, involving Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.17,88,74,208/-[M/s RIL: Rs.13,40,29,548/- and M/s Seema: Rs. 4,48,44,660/-] 13. Estimated evasion of duty on purchase of unaccounted (input)Outer Pouch Laminates from M/s. Vinayak Ultraflex, Kanpur. Investigations further revealed that 14,346.30 Kg of `Plain polyfilms' and 64,405.90 Kgs of Holographic films of SIR Brand Gutkha had been clandestinely cleared by M/s Vinay Wires Poly Products Pvt. Ltd. and by M/s Aanand Sales respectively, to M/s Vinayak Ultraflex (P) Ltd. Accordingly, a chart has been prepared, which reflected no. of outer pouches presumably cleared clandestinely by M/s Vinayak Ultraflex Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Shanker during May,2008 and June, 2008, no. of Sir Brand Gutkha pouches packed in such outer pouches so supplied and Central Excise duty involved on such Sir brand of Gutkha. The said chart reflects that during May, 2008 and June, 2008, M/s Shanker presumably received 24,30,540 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed manufacture and removal of Pan Masala and Gutkha, clandestinely removed during the period September, 2004 to May, 2008. Name of the Party Duty Demand proposed (Rs.) Raghunath International Limited (RIL) Rs.71,91,56,761/- Seema Enterprises (Proprietor) Seema Agarwal Rs.19,15,67,587/- Shankar Enterprises (Proprietor) Uma Shankar Yadav Rs.07,87,77,796/- Total Rs.98,95,02,144/- 18. Further, demand of Rs.1,36,668/- and Rs.28,090/- was proposed on dutiable inputs being laminates (packaging materials) found short in the factory of M/s.Seema Enterprises and M/s.Shankar Enterprises respectively. Further, interest and penalty were also proposed. Further, individual penalties were also proposed on the Directors, Proprietors, Transporters, buyers of the goods, buyers and re-sellers of the goods, etc. etc. under Rule 26/27 of the Central Excise Rules as well as Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. As regards, the three other show cause notices (for seizure part), the details have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier, Kanpur. Total duty demanded: Rs. 29,78,41,226/-, quantified on the basis of 50,000 bags allegedly cleared clandestinely and transported to the various destinations. Demand confirmed = NIL. Respondent Commissioner has found the aforesaid demand to be legally unsustainable. Count B(iii) - Clandestine removal of goods (Sir Brand Gutkha/ Pan Masala) allegedly transported through Road Transport Co. namely M/s Trimurti Roadlines. Total Duty demanded Rs. 17,88,74,208/- quantified on the basis of 49420 bags allegedly cleared clandestinely during April 2005 to March 2008. Amount of Demand confirmed in the impugned order, same as demanded in the SCNi:eRs.17,88,74,208/-. Count C Demand of Rs. 5,36,99,135/- on M/s Shankar, raised in the SCN in respect of 15,79,85,100 number of Sir Brand Gutkha Pouches allegedly removed after having been manufactured and packed in 24,30,540 outer pouch laminates, alleged to have been received clandestinely from M/s Vinayak Ultraflex Pvt. Ltd. During May 2008 to June 2008. Amount of Demand confirmed under the impugned order: NIL as the Respondent Commissioner found the demand to be unsustainable in law. Additional Demand in the SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ored statement containing factual errors, as neither 2993 or 2999 RRs along with their forwarding notes were shown to him, nor there did actually exist 2993 RRs/ Forwarding Notes, as there existed only 2583 RRs/ Forwarding Notes (after correctly calculating the total number of RRs/ Forwarding Notes listed in the chart marked as Annexure 9 to the SCN). 24.4 Out of 2583 RRs/ FNs, the Respondent Commissioner has excluded a total of 1566 entries (Table A1 of the impugned order) on account of non -fulfillment of criterion of handwriting, 09 entries on account of non-fulfillment of criterion of Description and 03 entries on account of non-fulfillment of criterion of weight . Thus, the Respondent Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty in respect of 1005 RRs which works out to Rs. 13,69,17,210/-. The Appellant‟s (assessee) Appeal is against confirmation of the aforesaid amount of demand quantified on the basis of 1005 RRs which are considered by the Learned Adjudicating Authority as fully satisfying the identification criterion, relied by the investigating officers. 24.5. The impugned order passed by the Respondent Commissioner is cryptic and improper to the extent it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / FNs and the Appellants, nor their exist any documentary evidence to establish the movement of finished goods from the factory premises of the Appellants to the Railway Station. It is an undisputable fact that there was no resumption of any incriminating transport document such as RRs/ FN or any such document (supporting the case of revenue) from the premises of the Appellants. Further, there was also no recovery whatsoever of any kind of incriminating documents from the possession of the Appellants or the employees at the time of searches conducted twice at their office and factory premises to establish any link with the relied upon RRs/ FNs. 26.3 The said third party documents (RRs/FNs) are utterly inadequate to constitute requisite proof to establish such grave and serious charges as suppression of production and clandestine removal of finished excisable goods. The whole thrust and focus of the Respondent Commissioner while recording his observations and findings on the allegation concerning transportation of clandestinely removed goods through Railways is entirely and exclusively based on oral testimonies of some persons which included mainly the Railway Booking Agents and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not even a shred of documentary evidence relied upon to establish any link between the Appellants and identified Railway Receipts allegedly used for transporting of Sir Brand Gutkha/ Pan Masala. 26.6 None of the Railway Receipts or the corresponding Forwarding Notes recovered in relation to the seized goods anywhere indicate the name of the Appellants or any of their employees as either the consignor or consignee. No enquiries were conducted and no material evidence was gathered by investigating officers to establish that the seized consignments were actually removed from the factory of the Appellants to the Railway Stations by or on behalf of the Appellants. 26.7 The Respondent Commissioner has completely overlooked the fact that none of the Railway Booking Agents or any of their employees or any tempo driver who allegedly transported goods from the factory premises to the Railway Station, has anywhere admitted to have received any payments for the services rendered by them from the Appellants or any employee of the Appellant. 26.8 The Respondent Commissioner has ignored the legal position that once the oral statement of any person is admitted in evidence then, following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded no specific finding on the Appellants contention, that that it is an incontrovertible fact that the Appellants have always sold their finished goods ex-factory gate at ex-factory price. There does not arise therefore any question of the Appellants having made any arrangements for transportation of goods from the factory premises to the railway station and thereafter for booking of the consignments for onward-transmission to various destinations through Railways. Once the goods are sold at the factory gate, it is the buyers who have always made their own arrangements for lifting the consignments at the factory gate and onward movement to their respective business premises located either within the same city of Kanpur or elsewhere. 27.2 There exists absolutely no documentary, or otherwise reliable oral evidence to prove that the Appellants had at any point of time undertaken any steps to arrange movement of the so-called clandestinely removed SIR Brand Gutkha/ Pan Masala from the factory premises of the Appellants to the business premises of the buyers or to the Railway station, for booking the consignments to the buyers‟ destinations. 27.3 It can be easily verified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate. The investigating officers had further overlooked and disregarded the fact that the Appellants had absolutely no concern with the payments said to have admittedly been received by Shri Binda Tiwari, Railway Booking Agent, from one Shri Alok Krishna Gupta or the payments admitted to have been received by Shri Dilip Kumar Gupta or Jitendra Kumar Rathore through Shri Binda Tiwari, at the behest of Shri Alok Krishna Gupta. Shri Alok Krishna Gupta is no doubt a wholesale dealer who is having an independent Company by the name of M/s Bee Gee Project (India) Pvt. Ltd., to whom the Appellants have sold their goods as one of their dealers. However, all the goods sold by the Appellants to Shri Alok Krishna Gupta or M/s Bee Gee Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., and others had always and invariably been sold under properly issued bills/invoices and are duly accounted for in the books of accounts of the Appellants. 27.7 The Appellants had therefore absolutely no concern as to how the goods i.e. Sir‟ Brand Gutkha/ Pan Masala were further sold by M/s Bee Gee Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., and others, and how such sold goods were transported onwards to purchasing dealers (of Bee Gee), once t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further urges that the criteria adopted by investigation for segregation of railway receipts, allegedly relating to the appellant is flaunt, without any logical reasoning and highly speculative. At the same time, it is based on the assumptions and presumptions only supported by the statement of some of the persons, who all have retracted their statements in the cross examinations. Such persons have categorically stated that the statement given earlier at the time of investigation was under coercion and undue influence and such statements are not reliable. It is urged that the respondent-Commissioner appreciating the defects in the investigation and lack of proper identification norms have been pleased to discard almost 51% or more of the railway receipts‟ but have erred in upholding the demand with respect to the 1005 railway receipts. Thus, the ld. Commissioner has erred in upholding the duty of Rs.13,69,17,210/- from the three manufacturers. The entire allegation of the Department is made out only on the basis of third party documents viz. RRs/Forwarding Notes, procured in a dubious manner from the Railway Authorities. Such RRs and FN‟s are said to have been provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uyer of the goods, who after taking delivery ex factory, arranged for transportation on their own. The allegation on the appellant is on the basis of the statements of Railway Booking Agents and their helpers, who have allegedly identified some of the RRs/FNs to be in their handwriting. But admittedly, there is neither the name of the appellant as consignor or consignee, nor there is mention of any of the finished products manufactured by the appellants in such RRs and FNs. That not a single consignment has been intercepted by the investigation allegedly removed from the factory premises without payment of duty. Admittedly, Kanpur is the city, where there are hundreds of manufacturers of gutka and Pan Masala. Several of them despatch their finished products through Railways. Thus, prima facie, Revenue erred in drawing a general view that these appellants are also involved in removing their finished goods in a clandestine manner through the Railways. Further, according to the investigation, the Four Point-Criteria/formula has been suggested by the Railway Booking Agents viz. Dilip Kumar Gupta/ Jitendra Rathore, who in the course of their statements have suggested that these can be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d RRs, much prior to the recording of the statement of D.K. Gupta on 24.09.2008. Thus, evidently the investigation is motivated and based on conjectures and surmises, as on one hand the four-point criteria was disclosed by D.K. Gupta on 24.09.2008, on which date itself or prior, the investigating officers already had a list of 2999 RRs. Thus, evidently the investigation has been done in a pre-meditated manner. Such data compiled by Revenue have been simply got affirmed from the said D.K. Gupta and others under undue influence and coercion, and the same is fit to be discarded. This fact is also evident as it is mentioned in the show cause notice - that the Railway Authorities provided the Xerox copy of 2999 RRs as early as on 12.09.2008 (much before the recording of the statement of Shri D.K. Gupta on 24.09.2008). 33. Opposing the appellant - assessees, the Ld. D.R. states- its alleged in the SCN, seizure of Sir Brand Goods‟ effected at Kanpur, Lucknow and Jodhpur Railway Stations, also corroborates the aforementioned oral evidences. 33.1 As regards this issue, the ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue states that the search was conducted at Lucknow, Kanpur and Jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turers, who have been associated with the group for the last several years, prior to the date of search. Mr. Rajesh looked after the quality control of raw materials, work related to the tax compliance, general labour issue and other day-to-day administration matters. Further, Mr. Rajesh was directly reporting to Mr Shri Prakash Agarwal, who was the Director in RIL and also the main beneficiary. Further, Shri Rajesh has stated that Shri Alok Krishan Gupta was the sole selling dealer of Sir Brand Gutka/Pan Masala‟ for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh. It was Shri Alok Krishan Gupta, who arranged for transportation through rail and road and looked after the collection of sale proceeds. 33.3 Further, urges that Shri Alok Krishan Gupta, who is the Director in Bee Gee Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur, in his statements dated 30.06.2008 and 17.10.2008 has, inter alia, admitted that he was handling the distribution of the finished products of Sir Brand‟ and also supplying Supari to the appellant/manufacturers. He also admitted that he was making arrangements for transportation and the goods were being despatched by the appellants‟ factories, both with bills and without bills. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is statement recorded on 4 different dates has stated that he was working as helper at Kanpur Railway Station involved in booking of goods belonging to the various parties for various destinations. He also stated that Shri Binda Tiwari was getting Rs.45/-per bag for the expenses etc. and he was making payment to the persons accompanying the goods in the trains to various destinations viz. @Rs.1,000/- for Howrah, Rs.1,200/- for Jodhpur, Rs.1,900/- for Pune and Rs.2,900/- for Hubly. The expenses for unloading and freight used to be extra. He was getting the instructions from Shri Binda Tiwari and accordingly, he was doing the work. Further, Shri Dilip Kumar Gupta recognized the handwriting of his assistants or associates on the forwarding notes viz. Taukir, Paras Pandit, Vikas, Rakesh, etc. He also agreed with the statement of Shri Bindra Tiwari. He maintained the record of the booking(s) made for Sir Brand‟ products in the name of M/s. Vinod Co., which is a firm of brother of Shri Alok Krishan Gupta. The name of consignor/consignee and address mentioned in the forwarding notes are fictitious and non-existent. Earlier, they were using code names for goods like Zarda, Sweet S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33.7 It is further urged that aforementioned evidences have been corroborated by the statement(s) of the buying dealers viz. Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Partner of Bajaj Sons at Kolkata, who has stated that he used to contact for purchase of gutka with Shri A.K. Gupta and sometimes with Shri Rajesh Agarwal telephonically. He was making cash payment for goods received without bills and vide demand draft or banking channels for the goods received with invoice. The goods booked for them from Kanpur, etc. are never in their names but in the name of some third person and the description on the RRs is mentioned as Zarda, Supari Chura, etc. On being shown the chart of RRs prepared by Revenue for the period Jan. 2007 to 8.5.2008, they stated that they do not have any record of the quantum of Sir Brand‟ goods received. Similar admission has been made by Shri Anil Singhal, Proprietor, Singhal Agency, Jaipur, Shri Jitendra Majethia, Director of Jala Ram Pure Products Pvt. Ltd., Hubly. Shri Nadim Khan alias Bilal of Pune Zarda Store, Pune. 33.8 Further, seizure of Sir Brand‟ goods effected at Kanpur/Lucknow and Jodhpur Railway Station also corroborates the aforementioned oral ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods. Ld. Commissioner further observed that Shri Jitendra Kumar Rathore in his statement dated 4.5.2009 has admitted that he was shown the copies of the RRs and their corresponding forwarding notes, which he identified and agreed to the list of 512 RRs prepared on the basis of forwarding notes written by him. Further, preparation of forwarding notes by Shri Jitendra Kumar Rathore has been corroborated by the statement of Shri Dilip Kumar Gupta. 33.11 As regards the objection of the appellants/ manufacturers that the booking agents/persons dispatched various goods to various places including Howrah, Pune, Jodhpur, Kanpur, Jaipur, etc. from Kanpur Railway Station and, therefore, it is absurd to presume that wherever the description of the goods on the RRs is Zarda, Zarda-Gutka, Sweet Supari, Mouth freshner till May, 2007 and thereafter, supari, supari chura, supari mix, pan masala, mehandi powder, advertisement materials, etc. destined for the aforementioned stations are necessarily Sir Brand‟ Gutka/Pan Masala, allegedly removed clandestinely. Further, the appellant/manufacturers are not the sole manufacturer of Pan Masala and Gutka in Kanpur and there are hundreds an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Dilip Kumar Gupta that he could recognize the handwriting of all such persons, who had left the job, was held to be not reliable. He further observed that the helpers of the Booking Agents viz. Jitendra Kumar Rathore, Paras Tiwari, Taukir Khan, Rakesh Singh and Vikas Kanojia in their statements have admitted to have prepared, after seeing the exact number of forwarding notes, totaling to 1049, out of the total 2993 RRs plus forwarding notes. It was further observed that the persons, who have allegedly prepared the balance 1944 forwarding notes were not examined at any stage. It was further observed that there is nothing on record to indicate the basis of identification of such associates of the Booking Agents. It was accordingly observed by the ld. Commissioner that Revenue has not been able to establish the credibility of 1944 forwarding notes and the corresponding RRs. Ld. Commissioner also observed that the 4 Point Criteria was communicated to the Railway Officer by the Revenue to enable to identify and segregate the relevant RRs and accordingly, the Chief Parcel Officer has identified and supplied 2993 nos. of RRs with Forwarding Notes, vide his forwarding letter dated 12.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants/manufacturers, who has, inter alia, stated that Mr. Sri Prakash Agarwal and Shri Alok Krishan Gupta used to give orders with regard to the quantity of goods for dispatch to a specific party with/without invoice on day-to-day basis. He also stated that Mr. Alok Krishan Gupta used to arrange for the transportation of clandestinely removed goods by road/rail to various buyers. Such statements of Rajesh Agarwal have also been corroborated by the statement of Shri Alok Krishan Gupta. Shri Rajesh Agarwal has also stated that freight for such transportation was paid either by Shri Alok Krishan Gupta or Mr. Shri Prakash Agarwal. Shri Rajesh Agarwal also agreed with the statement of Shri Uma Shankar Awasthi, Depot Manager of BCC at Kanpur. On being shown, the JST slip numbering 1308 resumed from the premises of the BCC office at Tatanagar, Shri Rajesh Agarwal accepted that they have cleared and transported 36 bags of Sir Brand Gutka/Pan Masala‟ and 14 bags of advertisement materials. He also accepted that Sir Brand‟ goods seized on 9.5.2008 from the premises of BCC, Kanpur and at the Railway Station- Kanpur/Lucknow/Jodhpur have been cleared by them clandestinely. On bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducts, he did not claim the ownership of the goods. The ld. Commissioner observed that the allegation of clandestine removal and transportation of the goods by the appellant/manufacturers stands established from the records found in the premises of BCC, which has been corroborated by the statements of the aforementioned various persons. Ld. Commissioner further observed that the allegation of clandestine removal and transportation by BCC is also corroborated from the seizure of Sir Brand‟ goods at the premises of BCC, both at Tata Nagar and Kanpur respectively. 34.3 Ld. Commissioner further observed that it is admitted by the staff of the BCC that they were transporting clandestinely cleared goods Gutka/Pan Masala of 5 different brands/ manufacturers and were making entries pertaining to all of them in common set of transport records. Further, observed that the investigation has not laid-down any clear cut identification criteria or parameters for identification and segregation of quantities alleged to be clandestinely removed by the appellant /manufacturers, as have been done in the case of clandestine removal/transportation through Indian Railways. Under such facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sands of entries with the same or similar description and destination codes have not been considered for inclusion in the Annexure, prepared for computation of demand. There is absolutely no factual or logical reason whatsoever to treat the consignment of goods having ambiguous description codes as being those pertaining to Sir Brand Gutka/Pan Masala‟. Further, the description code deviced for different brand of Gutka/Pan Masala are not unique for a specific brand, and has been most casually and carelessly used. Ld. Commissioner thus, concluded that the records of the transporter BCC are not reliable for the demand computation as such. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority re-computed the demand of duty for the alleged clandestinely cleared goods through BCC, relying on Goods Manifest‟ and upheld the demand for Rs.2,88,15,226/-(M/s.Seema Rs.2,76,13,340/- and M/s. Shankar Rs.12,01,886/-). 35. Assailing the confirmation of demand as regards the alleged clandestine clearance and transportation of goods through BCC, it is urged that the ld. Commissioner has taken inconsistent view and has passed a cryptic or self-contradictory order. On the one hand, he accepted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Kachri Papad, having destination Tata Nagar/Ranchi, have presumed to be clandestine removal of Sir Brand Gutka/Pan Masala, only on the basis of statements. Such statements not being voluntarily or freely given, but being tutored and/or given under duress, are not reliable. Such statements did not stand the test of cross-examination. Further, in absence of any corroboration with the records of the appellant, no demand can be fastened on these appellants, based on the third party records and/or statements. It is further urged that such transporters were transporting Kachri Papad‟ on behalf of numerous consignors/consignees. Further, BCC was also admittedly transporting Gutka/Pan Masala of various brands belonging to other manufacturers, including for the destination(s) Ranchi and Tata Nagar. Thus, the whole demand is presumptive and fit to be set aside. 36. TRANSPORTATION BY M/S NEW VIKAS GOODS CARRIER (NVGC in short) The demand proposed in the show cause notice was Rs.29.78 crores on the allegation that the appellant manufacturer(s) have clandestinely cleared and transported their finished products through NVGC to various cities of U.P., Bihar and Jharkhand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sa bair‟ reflecting 60 or 80 bags, in the parallel lorry challan, pertained to Sir brand‟ gutka transported without bills by NVGC during the period February, 2005 to April, 2008. 36.3 Considering the explanations and clarifications given by the appellant/ manufacturers, ld. Commissioner have observed that proper and thorough investigation does not appear to have been done with regard to analysis of resumed records, cross verification of the different version made by different persons, in their statement, for arriving at a correct identification criteria, for segregation of various entries with the description pisa bair‟. Ld. Commissioner further observed that the selection of entries for raising the demand has been done in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner, which is highly erroneous. He noticed that investigation has excluded hundreds of entries showing transportation of pisa bair with various quantities, gives rise to the possible definite indication that pisa bair‟ is a genuine item of trade only in event when it is transported in lot of 60 or 80 bags, all of them may not be goods with the same description, used for transporting some other product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antity, number of packages etc. What was reflected was only date, destination, vehicle number, freight and the name of Driver and owner of the vehicle. 38.2 After going through the evidences including the statement recorded and after considering the explanation and the reply of the appellant/ manufacturers, the learned Commissioner observed that the entire chain right from Sh. Rajesh Agarwal, the Authorised Signatory of the three manufacturers, Sh. Alok Krishna Gupta, Director of M/s B.G. Products, sole dealer for U.P., who is also the key person in managing the entire show from the procurement of raw material to sale/ distribution of finished goods, management of transportation and collection of cash as per the direction of Mr. Sri Prakash Agarwal, Sh. Sushil Kumar Gupta, the dispatch Clerk of M/s Seema and M/s Shankar, as well as the persons engaged in transporting the goods, all of them have categorically admitted the modus operandi adopted and have confessed their role in carrying out the same in movement of non-duty paid Sir brand‟ of gutka/ pan masala. The Adjudicating Authority has been pleased to confirm the proposed demand. 39. Opposing the demand learned Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identification, particularly for co-relating the transporter‟s records with the records of the appellant, the demand confirmed is presumptive and fit to be set aside. It is further urged that the statement was taken at the time of investigation from Md. Salim (person of TRL) and others under duress, in fear of arrest. It is further urged that the charge of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on the basis of documents/ record of the third party in absence of any corroboration with the records of the appellant. There is no iota of evidence that the goods mentioned in the GR/bilty and the day booking register of the transporter, relate to the appellant manufacturers. Such third party records which are full of numerous lacuna and anomalies are unreliable evidence in absence of any corroborative evidence at the end of the appellant / manufacturers. The said record of the transporter relied upon by the Revenue, are neither proper records nor maintained in a systematic or reliable method. Thus, the said records of the transporter relate to transportation work done for various clients/ parties and are not attributable to the appellant/ manufacturers. The identification and segre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voices and without paying/reversing the amount equivalent to cenvat credit availed. 41.1 The ld. Counsel for the appellants urges that the learned Commissioner have erred in confirming this demand. He further urges that the show cause notice does not disclose as to how the so called shortage of said duty paid inputs was found or discovered. There is no narration as to how the stock verification was carried out and whether any punchnama was drawn in this respect. The SCN only mentions that the search resulted in detection of shortage of duty paid inputs, being used in the manufacture of finished goods. 41.2 As regards M/s Seema, in para-4.1 of the SCN it is stated that in the course of search on 1 December 2007, physical stock verification of finished goods and raw materials in the factory premises was conducted in presence of Shree S.S. Verma - the production supervisor. Finished goods collectively weighing 6106.48 KG was found and 314.65 KG laminates, valued at Rs. 40,905/- was found over and above the recorded balance in RG-I register and Form-IV for register respectively. Whereas in para-3.1 of the SCN it is alleged that there were shortage of 4, 500.5 KG of laminates and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by M/s Aanand sales to M/s Vinayak Ultraflex Pvt. Ltd., (a manufacturer of laminate/ packing material). Revenue relied upon the statement S.K. Pallival Director of Vinayak Ultraflex, wherein he agreed to the facts stated by Shri Swetanshu Dwivedi Authorised Signatory of M/s Aanand Sales, and admitted that the material mentioned in the computer printouts was received by his unit for manufacturing laminate of Sir Brand Gutka. Mr. S.K. Pallival in the course of recording of statement has submitted a chart, marked as Annexure -11 to show cause notice mentioning therein the month wise details of both accounted and unaccounted purchase of holographic film of Sir Brand from M/s. Aanand Sales and also stated the quantity of laminate manufactured resultantly. It appeared to Revenue that Shri S.K. Pallival admitted to have manufactured a quantity of 1,40,813kg of finished laminate or outer pouches of Sir Brand Gutka, and he cleared the same clandestinely to M/s. Shankar. The said fact was further admitted by Shri Rajesh Agarwal, the Authorised Signatory in his statement dated 17/09/2009. Mr. Rajesh Agarwal agreed that during the period September,2004 to April, 2008, unaccounted outer pouche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said CPU was sent for forensic examination by the Revenue to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. As per the report of the laboratory, there is no existence of alleged data, on the basis of which the recovery of duty was proposed in the SCN. Thus, the adjudicating authority appreciating the interpolation in the panchnama (addition of CPU‟ later on) and on the basis of the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad found the data wholly unreliable, accordingly, have been pleased to drop the demand. Further, such data is also not reliable in view of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 36B (2) of the Central Excise Act. 42.4 Learned Counsel for the appellant manufacturers supports the findings of the Learned Commissioner on this ground and urges that the proposed demand have been rightly dropped. Contention of Revenue 42.5 Opposing the dropping of this demand, the learned AR for Revenue urges that this demand is mainly based on computer data recovered from the premises of Vinay Wire Poly Products Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Aanand Sales, Kanpur. Learned Commissioner have erred in observing that the entire demand is on presumptive basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se appellants is fit to be dropped and set aside. 43.2 In spite of two searches in the premises of the appellant/ manufacturer no incriminatory evidence was found by Revenue both in the factory premises as well as the residential premises of Director/ Proprietors. Further, admittedly Revenue has not established the manufacture of the huge quantity allegedly removed clandestinely through railway and other transporters. There is no matching on flow back of cash, in tune with the alleged clandestine removal. It is further urged that no reliance can be placed on third party documents in absence of corroboration with the records of the appellant manufacturers. Under the facts and circumstances, the whole demand confirmed against these appellants is based on third party documents and statements. As almost all the statements of various persons did not stand the test of cross-examination. That there is lack of sufficient evidence, and accordingly the demands are fit to be set aside. He further urged that the statement of such person(s), who have been examined in chief during the adjudication proceedings by the ld. Commissioner as well as offered for cross examination, their statements a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be set aside. 44. Discussions findings on Demand-cum-Show cause notice issued C. No. V(30)18-Adj/Div-III(/08/1352-57 dated 22.05.2008. Duty Rs. 2,98,262/- on M/s Seema. The Adjudicating Authority found that no evidence with regard to the payment of duty on such goods, at the time of clearance, has been furnished either by the transporter (goods seized with transporter), or owner of the goods or by the manufacturer, i.e. M/s. Seema. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority held that the seized 5,85,000 pouches of Sir (Gold) , brand Gutkha manufactured by M/s. Seema, packed in 36 gunny bags valued at Rs.8,77,500/-, already auctioned through NCCF, Ranchi, are liable for confiscation, as per provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also held that the Central Excise duty of Rs.2,98,262/- is thus demandable and recoverable from M/s. Seema under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act. 45. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue supports the findings of the ld. Commissioner. 45.1 Ld. Counsel for the appellant manufacturer opposing the demand of duty urges, that the demand is legally incorrect improper and unsustainable in law. The ld. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty on i) RIL Rs. 5,000/- ii) Abhishek Sales Rs. 50,000/- iii) Nath Co. Varanasi Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the seized goods have been manufactured and cleared in clandestine manner without issuing any invoice and without paying the duty leviable thereon by M/s.Seema. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority held that the unaccounted finished goods found in excess in the factory premises of M/s. Seema, as well as at the premises of M/s. Abhishekh Sales, Lucknow and Nath Company, Varanasi are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the Central Excise duty of Rs.1,60,377/- [Rs.1,04,281/- + Rs.56,095/-] as quantified in the show cause notice is demandable and recoverable from M/s. Seema under Section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the impugned goods have been manufactured and presumably cleared without payment of duty, the same is demandable from the manufacturer(s) as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 47. Opposing the demand, ld. Counsel for the appellant manufacturer M/s. Seema Enterprises reiterated the aforementioned submissions in para 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no allegation that such finished goods seized were found packed in HDPE bags, ready for dispatch. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the provisions of Rule 25 (1)(b) read with Rule 10 of CER 2002 are not attracted and have been wrongly invoked. Further, as Rule 25 (1)(d) has not been invoked in the show cause notice, it clearly establishes that the Revenue was satisfied that there was no intent to evade payment of duty in the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1)(b) is fit to be set aside. 50. Discussion Findings in respect of Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued vide C.No.121/INT/DGCEI/ HQ/07/9033-40 dated 07.11.2008. (Details of demand in para 1, above). 50.1 The Adjudicating Authority held that the unaccounted finished goods found in excess in the factory premises of M/s. Shanker valued at Rs.46,29,130/-are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Consequently, the unaccounted raw materials and packaging materials found in excess in the factory premises of M/s.Shanker valued at Rs.2,41,988/- Rs.27,225/- respectively are also liable for confiscation under the provisions of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons of the 3 manufacturers, Mr. Alok Krishna Gupta (Dealer/Purchaser), Railway Booking Agent and his associates and some of the buyers/re-sellers of the goods, manufactured by the 3 appellant manufacturers. 52.1 We further find that it is the stand of the 3 appellant manufacturers that they have been selling their goods throughout ex factory, at ex factory price. It is the buyer, who after taking delivery, arranges for the transportation themselves. Under the admitted facts, the 3 appellant manufacturers are neither the consignor nor the consignee, in any of the third party transporter‟s records, including the Railways. 52.2 Almost all the persons, whose statements have been relied upon, have either retracted their statements, which were recorded during investigation and/or the veracity of their statements did not stand the test of cross examination during the adjudication proceedings. The ld. Commissioner has noted in para -50 of the impugned order, that all the respective persons have retracted from the revelation /acceptance made by them earlier in their statements tendered under Section 14 of the Act, mainly on one pretext or the other by claiming that - they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in booking of goods of Sir Brand Gutka/Pan Masala as well as other brands from Kanpur Railway Station. He is the person, who stated the 4 point identification criteria of RRs relating to Sir Brand of Gutka/Pan Masala manufacturers. In his cross examination on 4.1.2017, he has retracted from his original statement stating that at the time of investigation, the statements were recorded under duress and coercion, he had to write as dictated to him by the officers. This fact is also evident from several contradictions in his statement recorded during investigation. In his cross examination, he has also stated that he has no manner of concern with the manufacturers of Sir Brand Gutka/Pan Masala. He was getting instructions for dispatch from Alok Krishan Gupta, who used to pay them for their services. He also stated that he was not aware if any of the goods dispatched through Railways were not duty paid. Further, during cross examination, he could not identify even a single forwarding note, which could be said to have been prepared by himself or his associates and/or related to the Sir Brand gutka/Pan Masala. 52.6 We further find that there is a serious anomaly in the allegation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was written by one Shri Anand Kumar and another statement by Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, and he had merely signed on the dotted line, being under pressure of the officers. He also stated that he could not tell as to which brand of Zarda/Gutka/Pan Masala or any other goods have been booked through the Railways merely by looking at the forwarding notes. After looking at his earlier statements, he has stated that these are not reliable and the same have been recorded as per the dictates of the officers. He also stated that he could not tell the description of the goods merely by looking at the forwarding notes/RRs. It is not possible to say, which brand of gutka/tobacco/pan masala was booked by dispatcher, merely by looking at the forwarding notes and RRs. He also further stated that he does not have any interaction with any driver(s) of Vikram tempo or any other vehicle. He has used the words, bags of gutka, etc. in his earlier statement under pressure of the officers. He also stated that he has no manner of concern with the manufacturers of the Sir Brand Gutka/Pan Masala. 52.9 Helpers of the Railway Booking Agents viz. Paras Tiwari, Taukir Khan, Rakesh Singh have stated in their c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d demand with respect to the alleged transportation of Sir Brand goods through New Vikas Goods Carrier Co., we find that the ld. Commissioner has rightly held that there is no substantial evidence corroborating the allegations in the show cause notice. The whole demand is based on the hearsay evidence and assumptions and presumptions, which has rightly been dropped in the impugned order. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the ld. Commissioner and dismiss the grounds of Revenue. 52.13 So far the proposed demand of duty of Rs.5.37 Crores (appox.) is concerned on the allegation of unaccounted receipt of packing materials from M/s Vinayak Ultraflex, having considered the rival contentions, we find that the ld. Commissioner has observed that suspicion howsoever strong cannot be the proof of clandestine removal, in absence of corroborative evidence. It has been held in the impugned order that the basic allegation of receipt of unaccounted inputs by M/s. Vinayak Ultraflex does not stand, particularly in view of the report of the Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, and thus, there is no reliable data of alleged clandestine manufacture by M/s. Vinayak Ultraflex and its clearances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly, we set aside the same. We further observe that the finished goods lying inside the factory are not amenable to seizure, unless the same are found outside the factory or despatched. As per the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder, the excisable goods are liable to seizure only after such goods are cleared from the factory i.e. outside the factory premises, if found, have been removed without payment of duty. We also hold that there is no provisions for seizure and/ or confiscation of the raw materials lying inside the factory premises. 52.17 Shri Rajesh Agarwal, Authorised Signatory of the three appellant manufacturers in his cross examination on 07.02.2017 stated that the three appellant manufacturers were selling their finished goods at ex factory gate at ex factory price. The manufacturers of Sir Brand Gutka were not undertaking or arranging any transport of the finished goods. He also asserted that in spite of repeated visits of the investigating officers, no incriminating documents or unexplained cash was found. He further stated that his earlier statement recorded during investigation were involuntary as the same was recorded under pressure and as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and confiscation of the goods seized at the premises of the transporters, being 39 bags in the premises of M/s Bihar Carrying Co., 212 bags at Lucknow Railway Station, 17 bags at Kanpur Railway Station and 88 bags at Jodhpur Railway Station, as such goods have not been claimed by the manufacturer - appellant, nor they are either consignor or consignee. The contention of the appellants that they have sold and cleared at factory gate, is not found untrue. Accordingly, the demand of Rs.2,16,745/- is set aside on M/s. Shankar along with fine and penalty. 53.21 Shri Subhash Kumar Mishra, Manager of NVGC, Kanpur in his cross-examination held on 07.02.2017 retracted from his earlier statement recorded during investigation, as being in voluntary or obtained under duress. In the adjudication proceeding he was examined by the Adjudicating Authority and he was questioned, if he had filed any retraction or any application with any Authority, bringing the facts to the notice that investigating Officer has exerted undue pressure or duress on him while recording his statement. In reply he stated that he has not filed any such letter/ retraction as he was not much educated and does not know t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances emerging in the cross examination of the various key persons, whose statements have been relied upon, we are satisfied that in view of the facts emerging in the cross examination, the statements recorded during investigation are not reliable, being involuntary. It is, thus, established beyond any doubt that none of the oral statements obtained during investigation and relied upon documents (third party) can be given any credence or evidentiary value as the same have been found to be involuntary or tutored statements tendered under undue influence/duress/coercion exerted by the investigating officers. We also find that save and except the statements, there is absence of any substantial evidence to corroborate the third party evidences. Such oral evidences are not sufficient for confirmation of the charge of clandestine removal in absence of any corroboration, by way of some documentary evidence of the appellant - manufacturers. 54.27 Similarly, the demand of Rs.3,40,019/- is set aside being on account of the goods seized in the premises of the transporters and traders. 54.28 So far as the demand of Rs.8,501/- is concerned on Keyman Laminators, we find admittedly, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
