9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used the cell phone in the name of a friend inasmuch as, from the said phone, calls were made to his residence and calls were received from his residence. The reasons for disowning the use of the phone by the appellant are not convincing - no prima facie case in favour of the appellant has been made out for full waiver of the penalty sustained against him. Considering the financial hardship to appellant, he is directed to make a partial deposit - Stay granted partly. - C/342/2012 - STAY ORDER NO.1617/2012 - Dated:- 14-9-2012 - M Veeraiyan, J. For the Appellant : Shri R N Viswanath, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S Teli, DC (AR) PER : M Veeraiyan Heard both sides extensively on the stay petition. 2. The appellant see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut 1-2 months back for planning the smuggling. Shri Abdul Kader has identified the appellant and confirmed the meeting he held for the purpose of arranging the smuggling. Y. Raju also in his statements dated 13.6.2003 and 14.6.2003 confirmed the meeting and the plan for smuggling. (c) The appellant, however, in his statement dated 14.6.2003 denied any acquaintance with Ravindran and Abdul Kader. However, he confirmed knowing Y. Raju. (d) According to the investigations, the appellant was using a cell phone number 9845039735 which was in the name of one Shri B. M. Veeresh. The appellant admitted that the said Shri B. M. Veeresh was his friend but denied having used the phone. However, the call particulars of the cell phone indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was not found in the address available on the records of the adjudicating authority). It was further submitted that cross-examination of Mohammed Kaseem, Y. Raju and S.M. Veeresh were allowed. He submits that Y. Raju denied the statement given before the DRI authorities. He retracted the submissions made by him in his affidavit dated 17.6.2003 which was submitted to DRI office on 1.7.2003. Further, it is submitted that the appellant has been removed from service in March 2011 and his appeal against disciplinary proceedings is pending. He is not employed and he is facing financial hardship and seeks waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty. 5. Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) reiterating the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were received from his residence. The reasons for disowning the use of the phone by the appellant are not convincing. 7. In view of the above, no prima facie case in favour of the appellant has been made out for full waiver of the penalty sustained against him. However, considering the plea of financial hardship has been pleaded, I direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) within six weeks from today and report compliance to the Assistant Registrar on 23.10.2012 and Assistant Registrar to report to the Bench on 26.10.2012. Subject to deposit of the above amount, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of balance amount of penalty and stay of recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeal. (Pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
