TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the poultry farm at village Khera Khurd which was owned by Sh. Sandeep Mann. On search, it was found that there were four gutkha packing machines which were in working condition and one machine was lying idle. Packing material and finished products under the brand name of 'Kanchan' were also recovered. However, it is claimed that raw material was not manufactured there but the same was brought readymade by the assessee-Appellants. The Department, on the basis of the statements of the concerned persons, made out a case of clandestine removal against the Appellants and levied penalties on the concerned persons. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 1738/2012 as well as Writ Petition No. 2851/2014 before the Hon'ble High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Sh. Jai Narain Virelley 3. Sh. Ashok Baid 4. Sh. Pradeep Anchalia The said company was engaged in the manufacturing of pan masala and gutka etc. It has purchased the brand names of Wiz and Kanchan from Sh. Mool Chand, father of Sh. Vikas Malu (appellant). The company used this brand name commercially. She further submits that the poultry farm belongs to Sh. Sandeep Mann who has let out the premises to Sh. Om Prakash Dubey @ Rs. 8000/- p.m. as per the agreement. To this effect, she relied on para 21 and 22 of the impugned order where the statement of Sh. Sandeep Mann has been discussed. Accordingly, he has let out the premises to Sh. Om Prakash Dubey who has regularly paid the rent as per agreement. 6. On the other hand, Sh. S. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e department. No material to this effect was brought on record. The learned counsel submits that the Director of the company has nothing to do with the said operation. 9. She has also drawn our attention to FIR lodged by the company on 16.10.2008, prior to the search, where it was stated that in the market under the same brand name, spurious/sub standard pan masala and gutkha are available in the market. So, he made a request to the Police to investigate the matter. 10. She further submits that in the instant case, the raw material was not supplied by M/s Kuber Tobacco India. Sh. Om Prakash Dubey has also obtained the registration belated but independently from the Central Excise Department for the factory at poultry farm, which was searc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mann, owner of the Farm House, has lodged a FIR, after the search where it was stated that illegal manufacture of pan masala/gutkha has been done in his premises. He also submits that Sh. Om Prakash Dubey (in para 19 of the impugned order) admitted that three cheques of Rs. 10 lakhs each were given by Sh. Chattar Singh Baid which were deposited in the Government exchequer towards the payment of duty. He also submits that Sh. Om Prakash Dubey is not in a position to generate the fund. His credit worthiness is not good. Sh. Baid is related to Sh. M.C. Malu (brother of Sh. Vikas Malu). 13. Ld.DR further submits that Sh. Vikas Malu, in his statement dated 17.03.2009, stated that he is the owner of the factory and he is ready to discharge duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was stated that Shri Dhanpat Singhee was in-charge and not Shri Chatter Singh Baid, but he was not summoned for the examination-in-chief. On the similar lines, the statement of Shri Sandeep Mann was recorded on 01.11.2008 wherein he stated that he is the owner of the poultry farm and admitted the manufacturing of Pan Masala in his premises which was rented to Shri Om Prakash Dubey, but never met with any Director or employee of Kuber (assessee-Appellants). His information was hearsay. He also filed the FIR after the search. Four more statements were recorded, but the name of the assessee-Appellants was not mentioned by him. In examination-in-chief, he stated that he came to know that goods were of M/s Kuber (assessee-Appellants) on the da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akash Dubey is different in the attendance register. Similarly, Shri Manoj Tripathi is not the employee of the assessee-Appellants and, therefore, it is claimed that rent agreement cannot be said to be at their instance. Shri Manoj Tripathi gave the cheques, but nowhere it is proved that the cheques were given by the assessee-Appellants. 19. In the instant case, no search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee-Appellants. The Department had not taken into account the consumption of raw material in the appellants' factory. So, it is very difficult to say that the raw material was supplied by the assessee-Appellants. For want of evidence, all the statements which were recorded, were retracted later. Hence, no demand can be ra....