TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals Granted: Judgment Emphasizes Necessity of Evidence and Witness Cross-Examination Over Assumptions in Legal Findings.</h1> <h3>SANKET FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD</h3> SANKET FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 107 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods.2. Admissibility and reliability of evidence.3. Cross-examination of witnesses.4. Sufficiency of evidence to prove clandestine activities.5. Evaluation of documentary evidence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations of Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Goods:The appellants were accused of clandestine manufacture and removal of Gutka and Pan Masala from January 2001 to September 2001. The Central Excise Officers conducted a raid and seized documents, raw materials, and unaccounted pouches, suggesting clandestine activities. The company was also linked to a franchise agreement and sales depot activities that allegedly revealed clandestine removal of goods.2. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:The appellants contended that the evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority was inadmissible and inconclusive. They argued that the impugned order was based on assumptions and presumptions. The statements of witnesses who did not turn up for cross-examination were deemed inadmissible. The Tribunal cited precedents where testimony recorded at the back of a party without cross-examination could not be legally used against that party.3. Cross-examination of Witnesses:The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cross-examination to test the veracity of witnesses. Statements from various witnesses, including Shri Arvind S. Rane and Shri Sanjay Gopal Sarode, were deemed inadmissible as they were not cross-examined. Similarly, the cross-examination of Shri Shanker Jhunjhunwala, who denied supplying raw materials clandestinely, was ignored by the adjudicating authority, which was a legal error.4. Sufficiency of Evidence to Prove Clandestine Activities:The Tribunal found no tangible evidence to prove the clandestine procurement of raw materials or the manufacture and removal of Gutka. The evidence provided by the Revenue was deemed inconclusive and insufficient. Statements from various individuals, including Shri Sanjay Shah and Shri Suresh N. Soni, were retracted during cross-examination, and the Tribunal held that their initial statements could not be solely relied upon.5. Evaluation of Documentary Evidence:The Tribunal scrutinized various documents, including ledger accounts, pages from files, and statements from employees. It found that the documents lacked corroborative evidence to support the allegations. Entries in the documents did not conclusively indicate clandestine activities. The Tribunal also noted that the adjudicating authority misinterpreted evidence and relied on inadmissible and inadequate evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order-in-appeal against all appellants, allowing their appeals with consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the necessity of admissible and corroborative evidence, proper cross-examination of witnesses, and the insufficiency of assumptions and presumptions in proving clandestine activities.
TaxTMI 