9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irlines, as soon as he came out of the aeroplane and recovered 63 gold biscuits from his possession; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.0 lakh on the appellant on the ground that the impugned gold was to be handed over to the appellant who in turn would have delivered to one Taranjit Singh alias Raju who would have again delivered the gold to one Ibrahim and as such the appellant was an important link between the smuggled gold and ultimate destination. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that no recovery had been effected from the appellant; that he had no knowledge about the apprehension of Piara Lal on 19/20-6-98; that on that night he had remained on duty up to 2.40 AM and as he suffered f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to do any act which had rendered the goods liable for confiscation nor he had acquired possession of impugned gold or dealt with the same at all. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Anant Samant v. C.C., Mumbai, 2000 (117) E.L.T. 444 (T) wherein the gold was seized by the Customs Authorities from main accused before he could hand over the gold to the appellant therein, the Tribunal held that the appellants cannot come within the ambit of Section 112(b) because appellants had never acquired possession or in any way concerned in any of the activities mentioned in the Section or any measure dealing with any goods which the appellants knew or had reason to believe are liable to confiscation... The learned Advocate al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs for not accepting the documents as registration number of patient was not signed and indoor patient register was not produced. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. UOI, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.). In reply, the learned Advocate mentioned that the decisions relied upon by the learned SDR are not applicable as facts are different. He also relied upon the decision in the case of S. Rajagopal v. C.C., Trichy - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 202 (T). 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. A penalty has been imposed on the appellant on the basis of the statements of the co-accused to the effect that Piara Lal was to deliver the gold to him after retrieving from the garbage in the toilet of the aerop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
