9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jagwani. (Appeal No. C/259/85) and of Rs. 10,000/- each on Mr. Jagadishbhai Babulal Patel (Appeal No. C/222/85) and Mr. Pravinsinh Ratansinh Jadeja (Appeal No. C/314/85). 2. The impugned order also is for confiscation of certain contraband art silk fabrics and metallic yarn, vide Sections 111(d) and (p) of the Act, and penalties vide Section 112 of the Act, have been imposed on several others. The Appeals filed, if any, by the others, have not been the subject matter here, and order passed in these appeals would have no bearing on those aspects. For the purpose of the present appeals, the order of confiscation is not under challenge, and what is challenged is the penal liabilities of the present appellants. 3. To refer to the facts mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported to have admitted having worked under the instruction of Niranjan M. Teckchandani alias Baby Sheth and received the goods and made payment to one Kedar as instructed by Baby Sheth. 4. On completion of the investigation, Show Cause Notice was issued to all those believed to have been involved in smuggling of the goods as well as those otherwise concerned and all the three appellants were alleged to have abetted in storing or disposing of the goods and on adjudication, the impugned order was passed. 6. Mr. Jagadish Patel has appeared in person and has contended that he had merely permitted to store goods to Satish Parikh, as he represented that some difficulty had arisen in his (Satish) business, and neither knew nor had consented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods to have been of smuggled nature. The issue that then remains for consideration is whether these appellants, or one or more of them are liable to penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act. 10. So far as Jagadish B. Patel is concerned, there is no denial that some goods were found from his premises. His contention is that on or around 6-12-1976, on the request of Satish Parikh, he permitted the use of some portion which was not used for residential purpose, for storing building hardware material, and that Satish had stored some packages in his absence and had applied the lock and again on 13-12-1976 Satish came at about 11.00 p.m. and deposited four packages packed in hessian and it was only when the Police and customs officials ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons to interfere with the same. However considering the role played by him, and also considering that at the stage of granting waiver, he has been directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- the penalty amount is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. 13. Appellant Pravinsinh Jadeja has been implicated as some articles have been found from the terrace of Sima Chamber where he has his office premises. There is no clear evidence whether the entire Sima Chamber building is owned or possessed by this appellant. There is also no evidence whether such a storage in the terrace was directed by him, to be made. A possibility cannot be ruled out that Satish Parikh having known Shri Pravinsinh Jadeja might have desired to approach him for permitting him to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
