Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (5) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Fabricks (India) Ltd., Ludhiana, manufactured oil cans and grease guns. Oil cans were an automobile auxiliary, and grease guns were used for filing grease in heavy machines. The accused firm used the imported and indigenous excisable raw material. Both these manufactured items were export items and as such the firm was entitled to claim drawback under the provisions of Customs and Central Excise Duties Export Drawback General Rules. The Director of Drawbacks, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, New Delhi fixed the rates of drawbacks on basis of the data showing the quantities of various items of imported and of indigenous, used as raw material in the manufacture of the export stems. Such rates of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n witnesses. After going through the evidence of these witnesses and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, found that the prosecution evidence on record even if assumed to be correct and the same remained completely unrebutted could not by any stretch of imagination warrant the conviction of the accused. The accused were, therefore, discharged vide order dated March 29, 1982. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard Shri H.S. Giani, Advocate with Shri Joginder Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the appellants and Shri V. Ram Swaraj, Advocate with Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. 4. It was argued on behal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the experts. PW 3 Bhagat Singh, Assistant Director admitted in his cross-examination that on the submission of the statements by the manufacturer to the Director of Drawbacks, the verification is got done or carried out by the local office of the Department of Customs and Central Excise to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the data submitted by the manufacturer. On receipt of verification report, the Directorate of Drawbacks examines the data and determines the rate of drawback. After sanctioning the same an intimation is sent to the manufacturing unit as well as to the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise concerned. Technically experienced staff is available for the purpose of verification required to be carried out by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h, respondent were taken in his presence by an officer of C.B.I. He also tried to prove the signatures of Prem Nath on payment orders Exhibit PB/1-6 on the ground that he was acquainted with the signatures of Prem Nath as he had been signing in his presence but when cross-examined he admitted that except when specimen signatures of Prem Nath were obtained by an Officer he never had seen Prem Nath signing any document. The statement of this witness does not in any way prove that the data furnished by the respondents was false. Statement of Subhash Chander Jain PW 2 was formal in nature and statement of Bhagat Singh PW 3 simply shows that a manufacturer unit is required to furnish data in the prescribed drawback proforma which is verified by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ished by the respondents was not correct nor he gave any basis for the same observations. His cross-examination revealed that he did not visit the premises of the manufacturer at Bombay and so he was unable to say if the specifications, size, weight, model design and the process of manufacture of the respondents and the other party was one and the same or there was any variation. He admitted that the respondent factory was carrying on rigid inspection at all the stages of manufacture. So it might have shown some rejections during the stage of rigid inspection. He also found that the process of manufacture was the same as has been indicated in the claim for drawback. This witness admittedly was not a technical man i.e. he was not an Engineer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates