9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10,000/- under each of the Acts on him. 2. Briefly, the Collector s findings in his order is that the police authorities intercepted the appellant on 22nd December, 1986 and recovered gold bearing foreign marking from his person. Subsequently, following his interrogation gold bearing foreign marking were also recovered from his residence by the Police. This gold was handed over to the customs officers on 24th December, 1986. Shanti Lal subsequently, gave a statement which disclosed the manner in which he had come into the possession of the gold. On the basic of these data and others cited in the order, the Collector confiscated the gold and imposed the penalties. At the outset, Shri G.K. Rana, Advocate for Shri Shantilal stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or an offence would voluntarily choose to avail of the hospitality of the department which is conducting the proceedings, does not, we think, even require an answer. As a matter of fact, the Superintendent of Central Excise Shri J.L. Kapur has clearly said during the cross-examination that till his arrest on 28th December, Shantilal was in my office till that time". We also note that the department has not challenged the correctness of the conclusion of the Chief Judicial Magistrate by way of filing an appeal or otherwise. In these circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable that Shantilal was in the customs custody from 24th to 29th December. 5. Shri Rana relies upon the decisions of this Tribunal in Shri Laxman v. Collector of Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in his order has not dealt with this request, but placed reliance upon the fact that seizure was in the presence of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses to the search of Shanti Lal s residence had retracted their signatures. The Collector seeks to dismiss these retractions as an after-thought. There is some merit in his view; however this cannot overright the fact that seizing officers were not made available for cross-examination, and no explanation in this is forthcoming. Considering that these officers were the employees of the State Government failure to produce them is a serious [weakness] in the department s case. 7. In addition, Shanti Lal has also produced a witness the driver of the bus in which he was travelling to say that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
