9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i A.M. Tilak, ld. JDR who represented the Revenue. 3. On the basis of secret information a truck allegedly carrying ginger of Chinese origin was intercepted by the Customs Officers on 29-3-1995 and the consignment seized. Statements of the driver Shri Md. Ilyas and Shri Avadh Kishore Singh (who was travelling in the truck) were recorded. On the basis of the said statements and further investigations the Department issued a show cause notice, dated 26-7-1995, among others, to the present appellants. It was alleged that 180 bags of dry ginger of Chinese origin valued at Rs. 7,70,000/- was being smuggled from Nepal by M/s. Shakti Enterprises, Kathmandu (Consignor) to appellants M/s. K.K. Gupta Sons, Khari Baoli, Delhi (Consignees). Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the impugned order on the basis of conjectures and surmises and not on any evidence on record. He submitted that the material relied on by the Commissioner like clearance documents, bilty etc. issued by Anil Transport Co. and the Bill of Entry were not the relied upon documents in the show cause notice. Appellants had no occasion to controvert the said documents. There was nothing on record Shakti Enterprises, Kathmandu. Even the SCN had not made any specific allegation against the appellants by name as to any act of omission/commission in connection with the alleged smuggling of ginger of Chinese origin. Further, the statement given by driver Md. Ilyas had not implicated the appellants on the purchase of the goods in question or wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Entry have not been taken as relied upon documents in the SCN. We therefore, observe that the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the said documents cannot be relied upon by the adjudicating officer has force. As regards the statements given by Md. Ilyas and Avadh Kishore Singh, we find that though these have been mentioned as relied upon documents, the same have not been placed on record by either side. The appellants had in fact made a grievance of the fact that the said documents were not furnished to them. We also observe that the SCN also does not in the directions part, specifically call upon the present appellants by name (the phrase used in and others ) to show cause against imposition of penalty under Section 112 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
