9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On 12-12-2002, the appellant No. 2, Mr. Chandresh Chopra, was intercepted near Patna while travelling from Chennai, by the Customs Officers and from his possession, 62 pieces of mobile and 38 pieces of earphones of foreign origin were recovered. He could not produce any document regarding the acquisition of these goods and the same were seized by the Officers. Statement of Shri Chandresh Chopra was also recorded wherein he disclosed himself to be the servant of Shri Manish Kakrania, appellant, and in pursuance thereof, raid was carried at the residential premises of Shri Manish Kakrania which yielded recovery of 62 pieces of mobiles of foreign origin. He could not produce any document regarding the valid acquisition of the goods and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akrania about the non-receipt of the copy of the order deserves to be accepted. After the receipt of the copy of the order on 8-12-2003, the appeal filed by him, was within time. Therefore, the impugned order in this regard holding the appeal of Shri Manish Kakrania to be time-barred, cannot be sustained. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also dealt with the appeal of Shri Manish Kakrania as well as Shri Chandresh Chopra, appellants, on merits. The absolute confiscation of the seized goods has been ordered under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. But, admittedly, the goods at the relevant time were not notified goods either under Chapter 4(a) or under Section 123 of the Customs Act. These were under the OGL and there was no restriction ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, are freely traded in the market, without any restriction. Therefore, their smuggled nature was required to be proved by the Revenue. 5. The ratio of the law laid down in the case of Prem Rattan Shadilal v. CC, 1990 (50) E.L.T. 265, referred to by the learned SDR, is also not attracted to the case in hand. In that case, the assessee was carrying photostat machine which he knew had been illegally imported and for that reason, imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was upheld. But such is not the position in the case in hand. The case of the appellants stands covered by the ratio of the law laid down in the case of CC (Prev.) Shillong v. Sangpuia, 2005 (189) E.L.T. 321 (Tri.) = 2005 (68) RLT 791 and Kulbhushan Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
