9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused-respondents are evading payment of excise duty, made a surprise check along with his staff (P.W.s 1 and 2) of the factory premises on 4-8-1973. At that point of time, accused Ghasiram was absent, but accused Biswanath was present. On being, asked to produce the books of accounts, said Biswanath produced all the books which were available. P.W.5 took those books along with him for examination after granting proper receipt (Ext. l). On scrutiny, it was found that there exists lot of variations between the quantity of matches manufactured and removed as accounted for in the statutory register called R.G. 1 and the corresponding entries in the private account books of the accused persons. On the next day, i.e. on 5-8-1973, P.W. 5 along with his staff again went to the factory and seized the books of accounts under seizure list (Ext. 2) and returned those books which were not relevant for his purpose. On being asked to explain the difference, accused Biswanath gave a statement (Ext. 3) asking for some time to explain the details. The seized books of accounts were then brought to the headquarters and after necessary examination, it was found that the accused persons have evad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d trying Magistrate who was the Chief Judicial Magistrate, came to hold that both the accused persons were guilty of the offence under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act and accordingly convicted them under the said section and passed a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months against each of the accused persons. The learned Magistrate acquitted both the accused persons of the charge under Section 9(1)(bb) of he Act. 6. On an appeal being carried to the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it could not be said that the accused persons evaded the payment of duty payable under the Act in absence of any evidence of clandestine removal and assessment. So far as the search and seizure are concerned, the learned Session Judge negatived the contention of the accused and held that the same were legal and in accordance with law, but considering the documents, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the documents were seized from the possession of the accused and that they related to the production and marketing of matches by the Mayurbhanj Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Rules prescribes :- "Every person who produces, cures or manufactures any excisable goods, or who stores such goods in a warehouse, shall pay the duty or duties leviable on such goods, at such time and place and to such persons as may be designated, in, or under the authority of these Rules, whether the payment of such duty or duties is secured by bond or otherwise." Rule 9 of the Rules prohibits removal of excisable goods without payment of excise duty and without obtaining permission of the proper officer for such removal. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions shows that an excise duty is levied upon "goods" and the taxable event is the manufacture or production of goods. See, AIR 1967 S.C. 1512, Shinde Brothers v. Deputy Commr., Raichur. The duty of excise, in essence, therefore is a duty on _manufacture or production of goods, though, as a matter of convenience, it may be levied at the time when goods leave the place of production. Undoubtedly, therefore, Section 3 of the Act is not susceptible of any other interpretation than that the excise duty is leviable no sooner than the manufacture or production is completed and the liability to pay accrues on completion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer of matches. On the direction of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Biswanath Agarwal brought out all registers and records from the almirah and at that point of time Santosh Kumar, brother of accused Biswanath, was trying to snatch away some of the registers, but was prevented by P.Ws. 1 and 2. As it was evening, the documents in question were taken by the excise authorities by giving a proper receipt (Ext. 1) and those registers were again brought to the factory premises on the next day and after necessary verification were duly seized under seizure list (Ext. 2) after furnishing a copy of the same to Biswanath. Ext. 2/1 is the endorsement of Biswanath to the effect that he has received a copy of the seizure list. Biswanath on being asked to explain the discrepancies was not able to do so and wanted some time so that his brother Santosh could come and explain. Ext. 9 is the Cash-memo Book of the Mayurbhanj Match Manufacturing Company from 2-4-1973 to 30-7-1973 and Exts. 9/1 to 9/24 are the memos relating to the period 20-5-1973 to 26-7-1973, Exts. 10 to 10/9 are the gate-passes issued by the factory for the aforesaid period i.e. 20-5-1973 to 26-7-1973. P.W. 1 furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been no assessment or demand, the accused persons have not contravened the provisions of Rule 9. In my opinion, the said conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge is wholly erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. As I have already discussed earlier, the liability to pay duty on matches accrues on completion of the manufacture of the matches and that apart the entries in the private account books show that there has been excess of manufacture and removal of matches from the accounts maintained in the statutory register called R.G. 1. Consequently, the conclusion of the learned Session judge is not warranted by law. 12. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the search and seizure made by the excise authorities are not illegal, but has further held that the documents (Exts. 6, 7 and 8) were not seized from the possession of the accused-respondents. This conclusion, in my opinion, is contrary to the evidence on record which I have discussed earlier. In view of the categorical assertions made by Biswanath in Ext. 3 and 11, the conclusion of the Sessions Judge must be held to be erroneous and, therefore, the reasonings of the learned Sessio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
