9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid car a consignment of 15 pieces (690 metres) of processed man-made Panama suiting fabrics for delivery to M/s. Amrit Lal Subhash Chander, Amritsar under the cover of accompanying valid GPI No. 1620 dated 5-3-1987 after due payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. 4. The said consignment of 15 pieces of processed man-made Panama suiting fabrics accompanied by GPI No. 1620 dated 5-3-1987 was transported in the said car No. DEB 2337 from the Company s grey fabrics transit godown situated near Telephone Exchange Building, outside Shastri Market, Amritsar where that consignment was offloaded from the car and transferred to a cycle rickshaw hired by M/s. Amrit Lal Subhash Chander, Amritsar. 5. After off-loading the said consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n empty condition near the company s grey fabrics godown near Telephone Exchange Building, Amritsar on 5- 3-1987. It was specifically mentioned in that letter that no copy of the said seizure memo had been given to the car driver. However, supply of copy of the seizure memo was with held by the department till the issue of show cause notice. 9. On 31-8-1987 the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh issued a notice to the appellant calling upon them to show cause as to why the seized car No. DEB 2337 should not be confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 as made applicable to Central Excise and as to why penal action should not be taken against them under Rules 52A(5) and 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 10. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... car No. DEB 2337 and 15 pieces of processed man-made Panama suiting fabrics. Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, public recovery witness, also deposed during his. cross-examination on 26-2-1988 that Shri S.K. Sehgal, Supdt. was present in Shastri Market, Amritsar at the time of seizure. However, during their cross-examination the departmental officers namely, S/Shri S.K. Sehgal, Supdt., R.M. Sethi, Inspector, G.S. Kapoor, Inspector and Ashok Sharma, Inspector deposed contrary to the said documentary evidence in the seizure memo that Shri S.K. Sehgal was not present at the venue of seizure on 5-3-1987. (v) During the cross-examination on 26-2-1988 Shri R.M. Sethi, Inspector deposed that the car No. DEB 2337 was not in motion but was stationary wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cheel Mandi Range Office and that he was not present in Shastri Market, Amritsar at the time of seizure memo was prepared in the office in his presence and contradicted the version of the other .public recovery witness, Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma and the departmental officer who during their cross-examination deposed to have signed the seizure memo in Shastri Market immediately after the seizure. (ix) During his cross-examination on 14-3-1988 Shri Vijay Kumar Kapur, Public recovery witness, further stated that he saw the driver of the company and another employee in Cheel Mandi Range office on 5-3-1987 and thus contradicted S/Shri R.M. Sethi, Inspector and M.L. Beri, Inspector who during their cross-examination had deposed that Shri Yaqub Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants car had left the factory carrying duty-paid consignments of 15 pieces of Panama suiting fabrics covered by G.P.I. No. 1620 dated 5-3-1987 for delivery to M/s. Amrit Lal Subhash Chander, Amritsar. 16. It was also their submission that the appellant had merely lent his car to the Company for bona fide use and therefore not liable to duty. 17. In the above circumstances neither the Car was liable to confiscation nor the appellant was liable to any penalty. 18. The learned SDR drew our attention to the Order-in-Original and the facts mentioned therein and particularly to the discussion and findings portions of the Order. He emphasised that the facts remain that the car was used for transporting excisable goods without a valid gate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from a factory on a gate pass. Obviously, the responsibility in this respect is that of the manufacturer of the goods and admittedly the appellants were not the manufacturers of the goods in question. Hence, Rule 52A was not relevant in so far as this appellant was concerned. 23. Similarly, 209A provides for penalty in those cases in which a person is concerned under transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing or in any other manner dealing with excisable goods which he believes or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation. 24. In the instant case no evidence has been adduced to show that the appellants had any knowledge or reason to believe that the vehicle will be used or is likely to be used for transport of cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
