9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. The appeal was filed on 6-6-2003 against the Commissioner s order dated 27-10-97. In the present application for condonation of delay (if any) of the appeal, the appellant submits that he had come to know about the Commissioner s order from the officers of Customs who met him for recovery of penalty amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on the strength of the said order. The applicant submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition, I have to accept the statement made by the applicant in para 4 of the present application which is to the effect that the impugned order was received by the applicant only on 10-3-2002. There is no delay in filing of the appeal and the present application is rejected. 4. I take up the stay application which prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 25-1-1996 and 26-1-1996 made by Pipal Singh appellant is concerned, we are of the view that those statements are not free from doubt, as he was in the custody of Customs officials and the possibility of duress or coercion at the hands of the Customs officials cannot be ruled out. Beyond this, the prosecution has no evidence worth the name to link Pipal Singh appellant with the alleged recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant to be liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The DR submits that the findings noted by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction under the N.D.P.S. Act cannot be any basis for examining the legality or otherwise of the penalty imposed on the party by the Commissioner of Customs under the Customs Act. 5. Though this submission of the DR is not out of place, I am incline ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
