SHRI YOGENDER SINGH Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 31.8.1992; an FIR was registered by Gurgaon Police, about theft of vehicles manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. Investigation led to the recovery of several stolen vehicles. While police authorities charged several persons including the present appellant, Mr. Joginder Singh for the theft, Central Excise Department issued show cause notice to recover duty on the stolen cars as well as to penalise the person concerned with the clandestine non -duty paid removal of the vehicles. Under the impugned order, a penalty of Rs 1.0 lakh remains confirmed against the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant was a mechanic at the relevant time with Maruti Udyog Ltd. The allegation was that the appellant was involved in the theft and stolen cars were recovered based on the statement made by the appellant and others before the police.

(3.) THE submission of the learned consultant appearing for the appellant is that in prosecution, the appellant has been acquitted and in a such case, the penalty imposed on him is not sustainable. It is also being contended that the statements made before the police authorities cannot be accepted in evidence. It is also being pointed out that apart from police investigation and statement made before police, there is no evidence with the Central Excise authorities. I have perused record and heard the learned DR also.