9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkani, Advocate appearing along with Shri Vipin Jain, C.A. for applicants Rajendra J. Parekh, Ajay S. Parekh, Hemubhai B. Thakore, Bhairanbhai J. Prajapati and Manubhai D. Masani. We have heard Shri N.B. Sonawane, Consultant for Mahendrabhai H. Patel, Govindbhai P. Patel, Choksi J. Hargovindas, Natwarlal P. Patel and Ashok Kumar P. Patel. 3. Rajendra J. Parekh was the owner of M/s. Kamal Refinery. Ajay S. Parekh was his nephew. On receipt of information that smuggled silver was in the premises, the Customs officers reached the refinery on 10-12-1990. The officers noticed 702 chorsas (square shaped pieces) of silver and two round shaped silver pieces. 534 silver chorsas bore markings electro refined silver - 999 , whereas the other pieces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani v. UOI - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.) = 1996 (66) ECR 346 which we, on examination, find to be not relevant to the facts before the learned Commissioner at all. The Commissioner s reliance on the statement made before the panchas is wholly misplaced in view of the deposition made in the cross-examination by one panch witness to the effect that he was not present on the spot and also in view of the defence plea the silver slabs were legally acquired. We find that at the stage of the hearing of the stay applications, the applicants have made a prima facie case in their favour. 5. Hemubhai Thakore, Bhairambhai Prajapati and Manubhai Masani are the workers in the refinery. They d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was upheld by the Sessions Court. Shri Ramteke submits that the judgments given by the court in criminal proceedings cannot be binding the factors in quasi judicial proceedings. We find that on this issue there are conflicting judgments of the High Courts. The High Court at Madras in the case of Rakhi Road Liners (P) Ltd. v. C.C. - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 413 has observed that acquittal of a person in prosecution proceedings was not a bar to the departmental proceedings. The opposite view was expressed in the Madras High Court judgment reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 640 following the earlier judgment in the case reported in ILR 1962 Mad. 632. The view held by the High Court was that the finding recorded by a similar court was binding on quasi judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
