Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) Laxmi Engg. Works v. CCE, Delhi 2002 (139) ELT 573 (T) 6.1 Countering the arguments, Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned SDR, submitted that 143 invoices on the basis of which demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed were given by the informers to the Department; that invoices were pre-authenticated by Shri Pawan Aggarwal, Director-in-charge of the Appellant Company and some invoices were pre-authenticated by Shri S.K. Sharma, General Manager; that both of them have admitted the fact of pre-authenticating the invoices; that Shri Pawan Aggarwal has admitted in his statement that the said invoices were signed by S/Shri Mahavir Aggarwal, Lajpat Verma and S.K. Sharma; that the Appellants' contention that the invoice books were got signed from the Director by one Shri Dharampal, a disgruntled ex-employee is not tenable as the Director, Shri Pawan Aggarwal had signed these invoices over a period of time; that this assertion of signature being taken by Dharmpal was not mentioned at the time of recording the statement and as such it is nothing but an after thought; that moreover S/Shri S.K. Sharma, Lajpat Rai Verma and Mahavir Aggarwal who signed these invoices as authorized signatory admitted the clearance of the goods mentioned therein; that their contention that the consignees had not been confronted by them is also not tenable in view of clear cut admission by the employees of the Appellants' Company; that the contention about the person from whose possession the said invoices were recovered is irrelevant when the Director and the employees admitted the fact of signing these invoices and having prepared and issued them. The learned SDR relied upon the judgment in the case of Magraj Patodia v. R.K, Birla, AIR 1971 SC 1295 wherein it has been held that a document was procured by improper or even illegal means will not be a bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. He also relied upon the decision in the case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157 wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court "there is warrant for proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible." Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni, 1983 ELT 1620 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that "assuming arguendo, that the search was illegal, then also, it will not affect the validity of the seizure and further investigation by the Customs Authorities or the validity of the trial which followed......"