9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise officers for further action. Out of said 86 packets, 70 packets were found to be containing mobile phones, electronic items of foreign origin totally valued at Rs.72,73,960/- and 16 packets were found to be containing indigenous goods valued at Rs.2 lakhs approx. Inquiries revealed that these packets were booked by Shri Surender Kumar, resident of Mahaveer Enclave, Palam, New Delhi. 2. During the course of investigation, Shri Surender Kumar was summoned for causing appearance before investigating officer. The appellant further, vide his letter dated 188.7.11, inter alia submitted as under:- l. Allotment letter dated 29.04.2011 of Northern Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he nor his persons gave any bill related with the consignment and also did not tender any claim of the seized goods. To verify the veracity of the statement of Shri Surinder Kumar and to ascertain the correct address of Shri Guddu Pandey, Chief Parcel Supervisor, Central Railway, Kanpur was written to, who in response informed that no information in this regard is available with them. 4. Inasmuch as nobody claim the ownership of 70 packets of foreign origin mobile phones which were defaulted in terms of Import Policy, the proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the same as also for imposition of penalty upon the present appellants by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 15.12.11. The said show cause notice culminated into an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is the lease holder of the train, was having any knowledge about the contents of the packets. As per the appellants he was not aware of the complete address of Guddu Pandey. As such, Shri Guddu Pandey was to take delivery of the goods himself at Kanpur Railway Station. From the said fact itself, it cannot be held that the appellants was aware of the facts of being tainted goods. 6. Tribunal in the case of Harbans Singh Narula vs. CC (P) Mumbai [1998 (100) ELT 282 (Tri)] has held that the consignment of contraband goods found in the office of transport company cannot act as an evidence to show that the appellant, who was a person concerned with running a transport company, was aware of the contents of the packets found in his godown. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
