2006 (8) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. This appeal has been filed against the OIO No. 9/2004-Cus., dated 27-2-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. 2. Shri Anand Seshu, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Shri V.K. Agarwal, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 3. Heard both the parties. 4. There were certain charges against three persons viz. M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of Sections 13 and 67 of FERA read with the Customs Act. The Adjudicating Authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. On going through the Adjudication Order, I do not find any evidence against the appellant excepting the fact that his Cell phone was supposed to have been used by one Nusrat. It is pertinent to note that the Hon ble H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd any other person of the said land phones. No opportunity was given to the appellant to explain his case by the Adjudicating Authority. There is absolutely no material indicating involvement of the appellant to warrant an inference that he abetted the offence alleged to have committed by the two bank officers and the three passengers. 5. On a careful consideration of the case, I find that ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X