9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original Bill bearing dated 10-4-1958 contain ing the name of Devichand Dharmji, saying that he purchased the goods from that Company. Subsequently on the date of the enquiry, the petitioner produced another letter to the effect that one Gevarchand of Bombay addressed a letter to the petitioner advising the despatch of 19,000 blades through one Amichand. The authorities were not satisfied with the explanation and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner why the goods should not be confiscated and a penalty levied. He submitted his explanation on 7-8-1958. Even on 17-10-1958, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras asked him to produce the original bill on 8-11-1958. The authorities, still not being satisfied, issued a fresh show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the party who bears it. It is not necessary that the Department should lead direct evidence to discharge their burden of proof. It can be inferred from the circumstances attending the transaction, from the contradictory statements made by the petitioner at the time of the seizure, from the conduct of the party in dealing with the transaction and also the nature and intricacies of the transaction. 3. The petitioner has drawn my attention to a number of decisions decided in this Court from time to time in dealing with these types of cases. But it is enough for my purpose to refer to the latest decision reported in Issardas Daulat v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 1867 where their Lordships were dealing with the interpretatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From the facts in the instant case, it is clear that at the time of the seizure, the petitioner gave a statement which was subsequently varied at the time of the enquiry and on investigation made by the Customs authorities, they found that the firm from whom the petitioner is alleged to have purchased the blades were not in existence. The story trotted out by the petitioner in regard to this transaction seems to be artificial and unnatural. Originally these goods were sold by a firm in Madras to Bombay merchant and these goods were sold after a period of one year by the Bombay merchant. The person who sold to the Petitioner i.e., Devichand Dharmajee had purchased in 1957 for a sum of Rs. 3,552 and he sold it after one year to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
