TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds viz. 500 kgs of Sequester-300, 350 kgs of Sequester-100, 150kgs of Sequester-600, of finished products lying in the factory and not accounted for in RG-1. The finished goods were totally valued at Rs. 66,900/-. The products were seized under a panchanama in the reasonable belief that 500 kgs of the finished product i.e. Sequester-300 was shown in stock register RG 1 as stock of Sequester-100 and stock of 150 kgs of Sequester-600 was also accounted for in RG 1 as stock of Sequester-100 and 350 kgs of Sequester -100 finished products in packed conditions was not accounted for in RG 1 stock register and consequently all the products were liable for confiscation. 2. Shri Bharat Dayalal Pujara, Manager stated that the product Sequester-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-300 was shown as Sequester-100 and Sequester-600 was also shown as Sequester-100 etc. Further, he also submits that on one hand the Manager of the factory and both the partners have stated that Sequester-50 was never manufactured in the factory during the previous two years. On the other hand, he submitted that they had produced evidence to show that Sequester-50 had been manufactured and was accounted in RG-1 register and had been sold also. He drew our attention to some of the sample invoices enclosed into the appeal-memo. Therefore, he submits that the statements of all the three persons were recorded by using coercion and threats and, therefore, the same cannot be admitted as evidence. It is his submission that it cannot be said that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artners and the Manager have admitted and the statements have been recorded and one of the partner's statement was recorded after one month. He submits that there was a minor omission in recording the statements of the appellants and the Manager deliberately made a wrong statement to the officers that Sequester-50 was never manufactured. The very fact that Sequester-50 was not manufactured but said that higher quality of Sequester was labelled as Sequester-50. Further, he also submits that the fact that there was unaccounted goods in the factory would support the case of the Revenue that the appellants were indulged in clandestine clearance of the goods. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. As regards the seiz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants were labelling the products correctly and there was no mislabelling of Sequester-600 being labelled as Sequester-100 and subsequently after clearance/relabelled. There is no evidence to this effect. If the allegation of under-valuation by declaring Sequester-600 as Sequester-100 was correct, the sample of Sequester-100 should have answered the requirement of Sequester-600. It is really strange that in spite of drawing the samples in the factory, the officers proceeded to record the statement of the partners and the Manager without even asking them that how they could say that Sequester-50 was not produced during the last two years when a sample had been drawn. There is no answer to this question anywhere in the records. In th....