on 07.02.2017 stated that the three appellant manufacturers were selling their finished goods at ex factory gate at ex factory price. The manufacturers of Sir Brand Gutka were not undertaking or arranging any transport of the finished goods. He also asserted that in spite of repeated visits of thee Investigating officers, no incriminating documents or unexplained cash was found. He further stated that his earlier statement recorded during investigation were involuntary as the same was recorded under pressure and as per dictates of the officers. He refuted the charge that the appellant- manufacturers were removing their finished goods clandestinely and for such clandestine removal, transport was being arranged through Mr. Alok Krishna Gupta, who was also handling the sale proceeds of such sales. He categorically stated that they were receiving the sales price through cheque/ DD/ cash. He categorically denied that the three appellant – manufacturers were booking their clearance either through Railways or road transport agencies. As regards live consignment seized in the premises of the Railway/ transporters, he clarified that there was an independent dealer’s network, who were purchasing the goods ex factory gate, including M/s B.G. Projects. It was always the responsibility of the buyer to arrange for the transportation. As regards the clause ‘read and agreed’ appearing in his subsequent written statement during investigation, he explained that he never had the opportunity to read his earlier statement, whenever his subsequent statement was recorded. He explained the condition under which the statement was recorded, as he was surrounded by the Officers in DGCEI office, Delhi in the late hours of night and then the statement was recorded as dictated by the officers.”
