9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from Hyderabad to Mumbai was operated as IC 117 but using the same aircraft. That is how Paowala narrated the entire case in his version. This is how the name of the appellant surfaced and that the seizure was affected of the diamonds as well. The diamonds were valued at approximately ₹ 5.24 crores. The department therefore relied not only on the statement of Paowala which is stated to be retracted but other materials in the form of identification carried out by a travel agent. The place was also identified and the recovery was at the instance of the present appellant. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal found that there is no prejudice caused to the appellant - This is not a case of the appellant being proceeded only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atural justice have been violated because this request is rejected. 4 We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal carefully and equally the principle in the decision relied upon in the case of Basudev Garg Vs. Commissioner of Customs. There, the issue was with regard to a report and which was relied upon. That was pertaining to the ball bearings of chinese origin which were imported but passed off as an import from Srilanka. That is to evade anti dumping duty. The show cause notice was issued and it contains references to several individuals. The Delhi High Court has reproduced the allegations in the show cause notice and the names of the persons whose statements were recorded. 25 statements were relied upon and equally some report. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a which is stated to be retracted but other materials in the form of identification carried out by a travel agent. The place was also identified and the recovery was at the instance of the present appellant. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal found that there is no prejudice caused to the appellant. We also do not find any prejudice being caused because of the alleged retraction of the statement by Paowala. Once there is other material which implicates the appellant then, this is not a matter which raises any substantial question of law. The statement of the appellant was recorded on 10th April 1996. The appellant admitted that he accompanied Mr.Paowala to try and confirm his waitlisted tickets to Sharjah. The appellant confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
