9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J)]. Being aggrieved by the imposition of a personal penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide adjudication order No. 27-Cus/84 dated 2-7-1984, the Appellant has filed the present appeal. In a nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that on collection of intelligence through a source regarding receipt of huge quantity of woollen yarn at Chauradano by rail by so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant. 2. The learned Consultant Shri K. Chatterjee appearing for the appellant contended before us that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant is the owner of this Khalihan. It was his contention that the Khalihan belonged to the State Government and unless it is established that this particular Khalihan was leased out or given in possession of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard the rival contentions. The point that arises for our determination is whether there was sufficient evidence to hold that the appellant had abetted the offence of attempting to export the woollen yarns to Nepal. In order to establish the same, the first ingredient necessary is to prove that the appellant is the owner of the Khalihan in question where the woollen yarns were found concealed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Additional Collector had come to the conclusion that the appellant is the owner of the said Khalihan, There was also no material available in the Order-in-Original to show that the appellant had abetted in the illegal attempt to export the goods in question to Nepal. The order is vague and is not supported by any evidence in this regard. So also there is no discussion with respect to the eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
