9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es was on rent by the appellant and she is operating from there and Shri Rajeev Gupta are indulged in the activity of smuggling of antiques on the behest of the appellant. - incriminating statement of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has been penalized only on the basis of statements of recorded by the co-accused. Moreover, the contention of the adjudicating authority that the appellant has taken the premises on rent from Shri Hitender Kumar. Infact, Shri Hitender Kumar was not the owner of the said premises. Therefore, the statement of Shri Hintender Kumar cannot be relied upon and I also find that no other evidence has been produced by the Revenue to implicate the appellant in the alleged activity of smuggling of antiques. As Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lord Ganesha. The said consignment was seized. Thereafter on 21st December, 2012, a search was also conducted at Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi wherein also 12 number of sculptures were found. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the persons who were handing the work were Shri Rajeev Gupta and Shri Nand Kumar. But as per the statement of Shri Hitender Kumar, (whose elder brother was the owner of the said premises) and on the basis of statement of Shri Rajeev Gupta, the appellant was implicated, that appellant is the master mind behind the activity of smuggling of antiques and Shri Rajeev Gupta and Shri Nand Ram are the employees of the appellant and working on his behest. On the basis of the statement of these persons a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, I do not find any incriminating statement of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has been penalized only on the basis of statements of recorded by the co-accused. Moreover, the contention of the adjudicating authority that the appellant has taken the premises on rent from Shri Hitender Kumar. Infact, Shri Hitender Kumar was not the owner of the said premises. Therefore, the statement of Shri Hintender Kumar cannot be relied upon and I also find that no other evidence has been produced by the Revenue to implicate the appellant in the alleged activity of smuggling of antiques. As Revenue has failed to produce any positive evidence in corroboration of the statements of the co-noticees to impose penalty on the appellant, therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
