9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eces of 8 M.B. RAM, 100 pieces of MPO cooler with leads, all of foreign origin and empty card board cartons of mobile phones bearing marking as Nokia and Siemens. The above goods valued at ₹ 1,05,20,000/- were seized since Mahender Goyal had not produced any evidence of legal possession/import of the same. In his statement dated 1.9.97 Goyal admitted that he started carrying mobile phones and computer parts from Kathmandu to Delhi for the last one month on the directions of Vijay Saxena and that Vijay Saxena gave him 3 pieces of baggage to carry to Delhi; that he was to deliver the same to one Tony who had a shop by the name M/s. Gift Palace in the Municipal Market, Karol Bagh. On 2.9.97, he further stated that on reaching Customs arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a shop by the name of M/s. Gift Palace, 159, Municipal Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. On the other hand, appellant No. 2 in his statement dt. 2.9.97, while inter alia admitting that he was dealing in the business of mobile phones and admitted that he had purchased 12 mobile phones from Mahender Goyal on cash payment on an earlier occasion, categorically stated that he had not placed any order for the mobile phones seized in the present case. The statement of Mahender Goyal, therefore, remains incorroborated and the Department has not brought on record any other independence evidence to implicate appellant No. 2 in the present case. We, therefore, agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the statement of Mahender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in computer parts. It may be true that Rakesh Kumar had purchased 12 cellular phones from Mahender Goyal on his previous visit, but in the present case, penalty has not been imposed on Rakesh Kumar for that offence. The present proceedings relate to the seizure of goods on 1.9.97 from Mahender Goyal at Delhi airport on his arrival from Kathmandu via Varanasi. We, therefore, hold that as far as the present proceedings are concerned, the evidence on record is in-sufficient for the purpose of imposition of penalty on Rakesh Kumar. 5. We are also of the view that even assuming that the statement of Mahender Goyal can be accepted, that can at the most only raise a suspicion against Rakesh Kumar that he was an intended consignee of the sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of the goods in questions seized on 1.9.97. Moreover, Shri Mahender Goyal has not named Punit Kumar Sakhuja at all in his statements. In both the statements, Punit Kumar has given detail about the seizure of the goods effected at the business premises at Gift Palace, No. 159, Municipal Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for which separate show-cause notice dated 24.2.98 was issued to both the appellants (see pages 37 to 42 of the appeal of Punit Kumar) which resulted in adjudication order No. 28 dated 11.6.98 (at pages 30 to 36 of the appeal) wherein separate penalties of ₹ 50,000/- each were imposed on Rakesh Kumar @ Tony, and on Punit Kumar. It appears to us that the adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty on Punit Kumar in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
