2002 (3) TMI 532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs held that Shri Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo is the owner of the vehicle under consideration. 2. The contention of the appellants is that they are the owner of the vehicle, which was confiscated by the Customs authorities and they gave the vehicle to Sh. L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iscated vehicle. The contention of the appellants is that in the present proceedings they are not challenging the order of confiscation, but they are only claiming the vehicle, which was now sold by the Customs authorities and they are entitled for sale proceeds on the ground that they purchased the vehicle from the dealer, who gave the same to Shri Lalit Kumar N. Rajdeo on hire purchase agreement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o be the owner of the vehicle under the provisions of Section 60(3) of the Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While deciding this issue, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that in absence of the definition of owner in Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, it would be reasonable to construe the expression owner must be held to be the registered owner of the vehicle, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X