9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und 12.30 hrs. Officers of the Customs Varanasi conducted raid at the house of the appellant and recovered 20 gaddas Chinese Tussar Silk Yarn, 2 gaddas foreign origin silk yarn and 9 pieces of Chinese Silk Yarn Fabrics from a room adjacent to a room on the outer periphery of his house. On conducting search of the residential premises of the appellant, Rs. 1,98,000/- from an almirah and Rs. 42,000/- from a suitcase, a cashmemo dated 18-11-1999 issued by a firm, namely, M/s. Ajit Kumar, Vishal Kumar, a piece of bansi paper, a paper chit containing some details of weight and amount and one/two rupees Nepali currency, were recovered, which were taken into possession through a Panchnama. During the course of search, another person, namely, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ownership of that room as well as of the seized goods. No Panchnama witness had come forward to support the version of the Department. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the room from where the alleged smuggled goods, detailed above, were recovered, belonged to the appellant. It also does not stand proved that the seized impugned goods were also owned by the appellant. 4. The seized Indian currency, detailed above, had been taken into possession from the residential premises of the appellant by the Department. There is no tangible evidence on the record to prove that this currency was the sale proceeds of any smuggled goods. No statement of any person to whom the smuggled goods were sold, had been recorded. The co-noticee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment. Therefore, there is no cogent reason to disbelief the version of the appellant that his confessional statement was obtained by coercion and torture. He even retracted his statement later on and his retraction could not be said to be afterthought. 6. When the appellant had denied his concern with the seized goods and there is no evidence that he has ever indulged in the sale/purchase of the smuggled goods i.e. Chinese Silk Yarn Fabric, the money recovered from his house could not be legally confiscated under Section 121 of the Act. 7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of confiscation of the Indian currency of Rs. 1,98,000/- recovered from the house of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
