2005 (10) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nst the adjudicating order passed by Commissioner of Customs whereby penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of Customs Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23-5-2003 certain quantity of edible oil was seized from trucks on the ground that edible oil is smuggled to India from Nepal. A driver of the trucks made a statement that edible oil loaded on the tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w that the appellant was involved in the smuggled activity. The driver of the truck has not named the appellant as owner of the goods. Shri Rajaram also not named the appellant as in any way related to the goods in question which were smuggled from Nepal. As Rajaram being their dealer of the fertilizer is known the telephone numbers of the factory, therefore, that number written against the name o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of appellant. These facts are not disputed by the Revenue. The driver of the truck at the time of recovery of smuggled vegetable oil named only Rajaram and not the appellant. Shri Rajaram in his statement also not named the appellant in any manner related to the smuggled vegetable oil. Mere mention of telephone number against the slip of Rajaram does not make the appellant liable for any penalt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X