TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S.C.)] to decide the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue together. In pursuance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court all the appeals are being taken up together for hearing. 2.Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala under the Brand name of 'Prince Gutka' & 'Yamu'. A show cause notice was issued on 12-9-1995 to the appellants on the ground that M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. cleared Pan Masala without payment of duty as well as by under valuing the price of Pan Masala on which the duty has been paid. In the show cause notice a demand of Rs. 9,53,88,001.00 was demanded on account of clandestine removal of the goods and on demand of Rs. 10,88,498/- was demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the documents prepared by Income Tax Department and admitted that they were purchasing Pan Masala Gutka Scented Supari etc. from M/s. Prince Gutka. The investigation conducted on the basis of the record recovered from the dealer i.e. M/s. H.H. Traders (P) Ltd. shows that M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. was clearing Pan Masala and Pan Masala Gutka without payment of duty from their factory and by suppressing the value of products to evade duty. The contention is that the only evidence in support of demand is the statement of dealers. 4.The contention of the appellants is that all the documents relied upon by the Revenue is recovered from the residential premises of Director of M/s. H.H. Traders (P) Ltd. and no such record was recovered from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the case of Quality Exports & Chemicals v. CCE, reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 362 (All.) and Grauer & Weil (India) Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 618, that the standard of proof in cases of clandestine removal is proof beyond doubt and not that of preponderance of probabilities as held in CCE v. Universal Polythelene Industries - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 228 and Sharma Chemicals v. CCE, Calcutta-II - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 271 (T); that positive evidence is necessary to sustain a charge of clandestine removal as held in Grauer & Weil (India) case, supra. He also mentioned that it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Calcutta-II v. Tube Bend (Cal.) Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 839 (T) that "the charges of clandestine removal are requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Chandigarh - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 347 (T) (v) Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 494 (T) (vi) Madhu Aluminium v. CCE, Indore - 2003 (54) RLT 296 (T) (vii) Essvee Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CCE - [2004 (165) E.L.T. 291 (T) = 2004 (93) ECC 305 (T)] (viii) Gian Mahtani v. State of Maharashtra - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 400 (S.C.) The Apex Court has held that "according to the system of jurisprudence which we follow, conviction can not be based on suspicion nor on the conscience of the Court being morally satisfied about the complicity of an accused person. He can be convicted and sent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S.P. Sharma was dropped by the Collector of Central Excise vide order dated 27-7-94 and the appeal against the adjudication order was dismissed by the CEGAT vide order dated 7-3-1997. 10.We also find that no investigation was conducted in respect of the documents recovered from the dealers' premises from the manufacturer M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. The only evidence relied upon by the Revenue in support of demand in the appeal filed by the Revenue is the statement of Shri S.P. Sharma and the time of cross-examination deposed in favour of the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. We find that during the cross-examination Shri S.P. Singh admitted the fact that Firm is dealing with the goods manufactured by M/s. Prince Gutka Ltd. During his ....