1983 (11) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reliability of Confessional Statements
2. Ownership of the Lorries and Goods
3. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act
4. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act
5. Procedural Validity of Show Cause Notice

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reliability of Confessional Statements:
The appellants contended that the confessional statements of the lorry drivers were unreliable due to discrepancies and contradictions. However, the Tribunal found that the statements were "spontaneous, voluntary and true." It was noted that minor discrepancies do not invalidate the statements, and the earliest statements were considered credible and corroborated by other evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that minor inconsistencies are natural and do not undermine the overall reliability of the statements.

2. Ownership of the Lorries and Goods:
The appellants argued that the adjudicating authority's finding on the ownership of the lorries and goods was incorrect. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's findings, noting that the statements of the drivers and the cleaner, along with other evidence, clearly implicated the appellants. The Tribunal found no inconsistency in the adjudicating authority's reasoning regarding the ownership of the lorries and goods, emphasizing the relationship between the appellants and the drivers.

3. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act:
The appellants argued that Section 123 of the Customs Act was not applicable as the goods were not recovered from their possession. The Tribunal agreed that Section 123 was not applicable in this case but maintained that the adjudicating authority's findings were sustainable based on other facts and circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that even without Section 123, the evidence on record was sufficient to implicate the appellants.

4. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act:
The appellants challenged the imposition of penalties, arguing that the adjudicating authority relied on hearsay evidence and confessional statements of accomplices. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, referencing various Supreme Court rulings that supported the admissibility of such evidence in departmental proceedings. The Tribunal found that the evidence on record, including statements of the drivers and cleaner, was sufficient to justify the penalties under Section 112(b)(i).

5. Procedural Validity of Show Cause Notice:
In the case of appellant M.M. Abdulkhader, it was contended that no show cause notice was issued to him individually, only to the partnership firm. The Tribunal found this to be a serious procedural infirmity, as the penalty was imposed on M.M. Abdulkhader in his individual capacity. Given that M.M. Abdulkhader had passed away, the Tribunal decided not to remit the case for readjudication. Consequently, the penalty imposed on M.M. Abdulkhader was set aside on this technical ground.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed appeals No. 104/80 and 105/80, confirming the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. However, appeal No. 106/80 was allowed on procedural grounds, setting aside the penalty imposed on M.M. Abdulkhader.