9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was directly or indirectly involved with the seized goods - penalty u/s 112 cannot be imposed merely on the ground that the appellant had given the premises on rent to Shri Ramesh Kumar – penalty set aside - C/518/2007-SM(BR) - 1854/2007-SM(BR)/(PB) - Dated:- 1-11-2007 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) [Order]. -1. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty of Rs.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Abdulla K. Munshi v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 264 (Tribunal). 3. The learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals.) He submits that the customs officers verified the premises number, address and mobile number of the owner of the goods, but nobody was available. Therefore, it is prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. So, it is proved that the residential address provided by the appellant is in existence. The learned advocate submits that the goods are not notified item and the department could not produce any evidence smuggled nature of goods. The appellant is not claiming the seized goods and therefore the submission of the learned advocate in this regard has no relevancy. On perusal of the records, I do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
