TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Accused 1 & 2. A Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the 2nd respondent/A2, for his non appearance and the complaint against A2 was split up on 19.12.2013 in E.O.C.C.No.250 of 2013. Hence, the trial was conducted only against the first respondent/A1. 3. The case of the appellant/complainant is that two vehicles, namely Toyota Celetor Saloon bearing registration No.MH-02-CA-0007 and Toyota Land Cruiser bearing registration No.MH-01-PA-0047 were imported cars. The car bearing registration No.MH-01-PA-0047 was purchased by P.W.7 Ms. Sushmita Sen in the year May, 2005, immediately on its import. The said vehicle was purchased by her through the first respondent's Company viz., M/s.Jai Mata Enterprises, on making payment of Rs.56 lakhs in the name of M/s.Jai Mata Enterprises. The first respondent claimed that he made the said payment to the importer of the said vehicle viz., the 2nd respondent/A2 herein by way of cheques and cash. However, during investigation, it was observed the said cheques that were issued in the name of the 2nd respondent were discounted by the first respondent through various current accounts maintained by the Commission Agents from the Textile market. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g registration No.MH-01-PA-0047 was sold to P.W.7 Ms. Sushmita Sen for a sum of Rs.56 lakhs and the payment was also made in the name of M/s.Jai Matha Enterprises. P.W.7 also clearly stated that she purchased the said car through the first respondent and also paid Customs Duty and penalty. The first respondent also admitted the above fact and further stated that he imported the said car through the 2nd respondent and he was not aware the manufacturing year of the car and he did not suppress any fact or mis-declare. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that once the first respondent admitted the fact that he sold the imported cars by using the Exim Policy especially Public Notice No.3/2000, it is for him to establish that the cars which were imported or purchased from the importers and manufacturers are not sold to third parties, within a period of two years from the date of purchase. Further, on enquiry it was found that there is no person in the name of Vasu Pandri Thamala. Actually, the name of the 2nd respondent is Srinivas Balashetty Nama @ Vasu Pandri Thamala. The 2nd respondent by using bogus passport in the name of Vasu Pandri Thamal imported the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent would submit that though the first respondent sold the car bearing registration No.MH-01-PA-0047 to P.W.7 and no materials would show that the Chasis number was tampered and the car was manufactured in the year 2004 not in the year 1998. The first respondent continued the car business through his agent viz., Shri Rajesh and he was not aware that the car was manufactured in the year 2004. It is further stated that the said vehicle was inspected by one Mr.Milind Kohjkar of M/s.Lakozy Motors, Mumbai was not examined by the prosecution, to prove that Panchanama was conducted at M/s.Lakozy Motors as mentioned in Ex.P.17 and further he would submit that Exs.18 and 50 are the vehicle informations collected by M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors, Bangalore from its principal M/s. Toyota Motors Corporation at Japan. It is further stated that the information sought for by one Mr.Hebbar, General Manager, Imports and Exports of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt., Ltd., was not recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act and he was not examined before the Court. No witnesses have specifically stated that the car was manufactured in the year 2004. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistration No.MH-01-PA-0047 and in her evidence she has stated that she purchased the said car in the year May, 2005. In the R.C. book the year of manufacture of the said vehicle shows as 2004. The vehicle was purchased through the first respondent, which was imported in the name of the 2nd respondent vide Bill of entry No.773555, dated 17.3.2005 at Chennai Customs House. The said vehicle was examined through authorised dealers in the presence of two independent witnesses. At the time of examination, the authorised representatives of Ms.Sushmita Sen-P.W.7 was also present. During the examination of the engine, it was found that the said vehicle engine number is 2UZ*9116472. The Chasis number found embossed on the Chasis at the back side of front side wheel and it is UZJ-100-0046370. During the examination of Shri Pravin Soans, Service Manager of M/s.Lakozy Motors Pvt., Ltd., Mumbai, he stated that the said Chasis number was tampered. Since the Chasis number was tampered, the font of numeric punches were different than the usual fonts and numeric punches embossed on Toyota Vehicles. During the examination of the photographs of the vehicle that were taken in the presence of panch wi....