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

2000 (8) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... said containers are liable for payment of excise duty. The company held a licence and maintained statutory registers and paid the excise duty on the containers manufactured by it upto 20-6-1984. It is alleged that the respondents 2 3 with an intention to avoid payment of the excise duty by the company, the 1st respondent, filed a classification list with the authorities falsely notifying that the company had employed only 9 workers and therefore, it is not liable for payment of excise duty. On 16-2-1995 the officers visited the factory of the respondent no. 1 and seized several incriminating documents which established that there were more than 10 workers for the period subsequent to 20-6-1984. It is the case of the appellant that the co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not require any corroboration to hold that the respondents 1 to 3 are guilty of the offence. He also further submitted that the documents produced in this case fully corroborate the statement made by P.W. 1 before the Court and also the admissions of R-2 R-3 before P.W. 1. Therefore, the learned Court below has committed an error in acquitting the respondents. 5.Repelling this argument, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Ex. P-3, the statement of Tendulkar and Ex. P-4 the statement of N.K. Madhu when read, makes it clear that nowhere they have admitted the guilt. On the other hand, for each question they have given answers to indicate that they have not committed any offence. They have gone to the extent of saying t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fact asserted by the opponent is true. Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect to the matter in dispute, whether by acts, speech, or writing, which is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention, is a fact relevant to the issue. Admissions are very weak kind of evidence and the Court may reject them if it is satisfied from other circumstances that they are untrue. Admissions as defined in Ss. 17 20 and fulfilling the requirements of Section 21 are substantive evidence. An admission is the best evidence against the party making it and, though not conclusive, shifts the onus to the maker on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may be reasonably presumed to be true so .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ust be voluntary. 8.With this principle in mind, I have carefully gone through the statements marked as Exs. P-3 5. I am fully convinced that these statements are not voluntary but they also cannot be construed as admissions. But it is only in the nature of explanation for each and every question put forth by P.W. 1. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the last paragraph of their statement both of them admitted that they would produce all the documents before the authority to prove that they had never employed more than 9 persons at any time after exemption certificate was obtained by the respondents. However, they did not produce any material before the authority to substantiate their case. This argument .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oved the case against the respondents. The learned Court below also has taken into consideration that P.W. 1 has admitted that the name of Raja which appears in Ex. P-4 is not appearing in Ex. P-6 and that 5 names at Sl. Nos. 10, 11 to 14 in Ex. P-6 are taken on the basis of attendance register and not on the basis of file No. 28 O.T. Sheets. P.W. 1 also could not say as to how many workers were on over-time on 28-8-84. P.W. 1 also has admitted during the course of recording the statement of Respondents 2 3. He had seen the job cards of all the workers of the factory regarding the nature of the work done by them, but those cards are also not produced before Court. 11.There is nothing to show that this officer had warned respondents 2 .....

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