9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby his Truck No. HR-29/C-6077 was confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the option was given to the appellant to redeem the truck on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant. 2. The brie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and were kept concealed at Siliguri in the godown of Western Carrier, S.F. Road, Siliguri and the appellant Shri Shashi instructed the driver of the truck, unload the goods at Laxmi Transport at Ghaziabad. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the truck imposing penalty. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order. 3. Learned Counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and are freely importable. Therefore, onus is on the Revenue to show that the goods are of smuggled nature. For this, he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ashoke Shamooi v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Calcutta, reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 503 (Tribunal). He, therefore, submits that the appeal be allowed. 5. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Kumar Singh in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, at the time of recovery of the goods, specifically mentioned that the goods were brought from Nepal illegally and are kept concealed in a godown in Siliguri and the goods were loaded in the truck in the presence of the owner of the truck (present appellant). As the Cleaner of the truck specifically mentioned that the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
