9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who in his statement before the Customs Officers deposed that the same were given to him by one Shri Kedar of Nepal for onward delivery to the appellant. As a result, the appellant's premises were put to search. However, nothing incriminating was recovered. He also submits that the authorities below have penalised the applicant/appellant only on the statement of Shri Santosh Kumar Rauniyar, which in any case was subsequently retracted by him. The another ground taken by the authorities below for imposing penalty upon the applicant/appellant is that he failed to appear before the Customs Officers in response to summons issued to him. Clarifying this position, Shri Chattopadhyay argues that the applicant/appellant was operated upon at the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of any other corroborative evidence. In these circumstances, learned Consultant prays for allowing the Application unconditionally. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri J.M. Kenedy, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, submits that Shri Santosh Kumar Rauniyar had given the detailed address as well as the telephone number of the applicant/appellant. This fact shows that Shri Rauniyar was well-acquainted with the applicant/appellant and had the full details of his whereabouts. It is not a general type of statement made by Shri Rauniyar. He also submits that the confessional statement of Shri Rauniyar is not only implicating the applicant/appellant but implicating himself also and such a statement is admissible as an evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on were to be delivered to the applicant/appellant. The case-law relied upon by the learned Consultant supports his defence. On the contrary, I find that in the case of Kishan Chand relied upon by the learned JDR, there was a confessional statement which was a detailed statement and was corroborated by the statement of the co-accused, which led the Tribunal to treat the same as a good evidence against the applicant/appellant. Similarly, in the case of Naresh Sukhwani, it is seen that there was other evidence also, which along with the statement given by the co-accused, was held to be sufficient to hold the applicant/appellant guilty. In the instant case, I find that there is nothing except the statement of the person from whose possession g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
