Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
Section 9 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Khet Singh vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2002
In Khet Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2002 (142) ELT 13, the Apex Court while reiterating its earlier view in Pooran Mals case had held that Court has consistently refused to exclude relevant fact merely on the ground that it was obtained by illegal search or seizure. It was further ruled that even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby would not become inadmissible and the Court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to be accused. If the search and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence. But mere irregularity, and even illegality in the course of search and seizure cannot by itself render the documents seized in the course of such search or seizure to be inadmissible in evidence. Albeit, the relevancy thereof can be certainly questioned.
After holding so, the Bench proceeded to discuss the evidentiary value of the documents so recovered from various premises of the appellants. After taking into consideration the fact that documents so recovered were disowned by the appellants, it was observed that neither the author of the documents has been identified nor examined and the documents are carbon copies and being private documents unless a link is established between the said documents and the activities of the appellants in their factory, no credibility can be given to the said documents, the Bench accordingly held as under :-
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998
52. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C.Shukla reported in 1988(3)SCC410. Though the said decision does not relate to clandestine removal and confirmation of demand of duty of excise but reference can be made to the observations and findings of the apex court relating to the evidences. While dealing with probative value of the entries made in the books of accounts, the Honble Supreme Court observed that such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. Entries even if relevant are only corroborative evidences and required independent evidence as to trustworthiness of those entries necessary to fasten liability. The entries made in the diaries though admissible u/s 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872, truthfulness thereof is not proved by any independent evidence.
Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2007
26. It would be necessary to analyze whether the evidences, other than the retracted oral evidences, are credible for being used as corroborative evidence. The Honble Supreme Court in case of Sitaram Sao v. State of Jharkhand - (2007) 12 SCC 630, pithily encapsulated the idea of corroborative evidence, in the following words :
Anthony Dung Dung vs State Of Jharkhand on 30 April, 2009
Similarly in the case of Ratna Fire Works reported in 2005(192)ELT382(Tri.), it was observed that though mathematical procedure is not required to establish the clandestine removal but that does not mean a fact could be proved without sufficient evidence. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anjlus Dung Dung vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2005(9)SCC765 observed that suspicious however strong cannot take place of proof.
J.B. Wadiwala And Others vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 11 June, 2001
31. My above views are fortified by a recent case in the case of Viswa Traders Pvt.Ltd. & others Vs. CCE Vadodara being Final Order No.A/1846-1851/WZB/AHD/2011, dt.01.11.2011, a similar issue of clandestine removal was decided by co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in Ahmedabad, wherein it is held that unless clandestine manufacturing is brought on record, there cannot be any allegation of clandestine clearances, un-corroborated with evidences. I was one of the Members in that Bench and while coming to the conclusion, the Bench had relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Nissan Thermoware Pvt. 2011 (266) ELT 45 (Guj.) I am reproducing the relevant portion of the said order, which is fortifying my view in this case also.
1