2019 (7) TMI 721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Shri A.K. Prasad (Advocate) for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl. Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA : The challenge in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs. 1.25 Crores imposed upon the appellant in terms of the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. 2. As per facts on record, the Police officers searched residential premises of o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Rathore, the officers recorded the statement of Shri Subash Chandra on 3 January 2012 and 4 May 2012. In both the said statements, the appellant deposed that he has got nothing to do with the Gutkha being manufactured by Shri Sanjay Rathore and he was a small time trader of matches, Biris, tea leaves, mosquito coil etc.. He denied supplying any loose Gutkha or packing material to Shri Sanjay Rat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st whom demands stands confirmed is not before us today. Only the appeal filed by Shri Subash Chandra challenging imposition of penalty upon him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is being taken up for final disposal. 9. After hearing the submissions made by both the sides and after going through the impugned orders we find that the Commissioner has not considered the present appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Central Excise Act and as is the well settled law, the said statements cannot be admitted as an evidence. If the said two statements are taken out of consideration, nothing survives with the Revenue so as to hold against the appellant. Otherwise also it is well settled law and does not require support of any precedent decisions to conclude that the oral statements, by themselves, cannot be reli....