9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Prakash Verma and Shri Parsuramjee were apprehended at the land customs station at Indo-Nepal border. Both the persons came from Nepal. Shri Jay Prakash Verma and Shri Parsuramjee disclosed to the customs officers that they had kept concealed gold in their rectum which was purchased from Shop No. 261, Vishal Market, Kathmandu, and they also disclosed that they are employees of Shri Shiv Jee Prasad Gupta, the present Appellant and they were carrying this gold at the instruction of the present Appellant. Thereafter gold of 424 gms. were recovered from Shri Parsuramjee and 259 gms. from Shri Jay Prakash Verma. Thereafter summons were issued to the present Appellant Shri Shiv Jee Prasad Gupta and the present Appellant appeared on 14-1-1991 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore retracted statements cannot be relied for confiscation of gold and for imposition of penalty. The Appellant also submitted that they filed a Recovery Suit against the Customs Inspector in respect of some quantity of gold which was embezzled. 6. The contention of Revenue is that Shri Jay Prakash Verma and Shri Parsuramjee was apprehended at the land customs station when they were coming from Nepal and both disclosed that they concealed the gold in their rectum and the same were recovered. Both the persons from whom the gold was recovered never retracted from their statements. It is only in reply to the show cause notice dated 11-4-1991 they made the retraction. It is also submitted that the investigation was conducted from Shri A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e findings of the adjudicating Authority nor filed any Appeal against the imposition of penalties. It is only the present Appellant who is pursuing the issue for return of the gold and for setting aside the imposition of penalty. The contention is that the gold was handed over to both the persons to deliver the same to one Shri Ajay Sarraf. The Appellant was summoned by the investigating officer and in his statement dated 14-1-1991 the Appellant had not made any claim regarding the ownership of gold. In a specific query by the investigating Officer the Appellant simply stated that he is unable to understand the matter correctly. The Appellant claimed the gold first time in his reply to the show cause notice and stated that the same were to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
