9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kang: Heard both sides. 2. The appellants filed these appeals against a common order-in-appeal. The appellants challenged in these appeals the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- each imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 5.2.2004 one person, namely, Shri Iqbal Yusuf Suleman, was intercepted by the Customs officials while boarding flight No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscation of the foreign currency and for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confiscated the foreign currency equivalent to Rs.17,98,900.00 and imposed penalty of Rs.6,00,000/- on Shri Iqbal Suleman under Section 114 of the Customs Act and penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- each on the present appellants. 4. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants were working in the security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants and subsequently the appellants delivered the same to Shri Suleman at the time of boarding the flight. The appellants also pleaded leniency on the ground that the appellants are out of service. 5. The Revenue submitted that the appellants were in the security staff of the Oman Airways. Being a security in the security staff, the duty of the appellant was to prevent illegal things to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Naresh J. Sukhawani vs. UOI reported in 1996 (83) ELT 258 (SC) to submit that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is the substantial piece of evidence which is admissible as evidence. 6. In this case, the foreign currency was recovered from one Shri Iqbal Suleman while boarding a flight of Oman Airways to Dubai. Shri Suleman in his statement recorded under Section 108 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
