9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, the respondents are under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India and therefore it is required to establish direct evidence to involve the respondents in the alleged offence. Revenue failed to produce any such materials in their grounds of appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/234-246/12 - FO/A/76099-76111/2017 - Dated:- 28-4-2017 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri S.N.Mitra, AC(AR) for the Revenue Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P.K.Choudhary. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.09.2010, the DRI officers, Muzaffarrpur recovered huge consignment of cut Betel Nuts alleged to be of third country origin from the godown owned by one S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformed vide his letter dated 09.12.2010 that Sri Parakh resides somewhere at Biratnagar (Nepal). It is also observed that the godown premise is owned by Noticee No.5 and nothing reflects in the investigation which suggests his involvement in the smuggling activity. Hence, I refrain from imposing any penalty upon Noticee No.5. In respect of Noticee No.6 it is observed that her mobile sim number 9934862445 was used by Md. Tufan Noticee No.2, but she was unaware about the whole matter that who used her mobile sim number and what was his purpose and also her mobile number was lost some seven months ago. I do not find any involvement of her in the smuggling activity. Hence, I refrain from imposing any penalty upon Noticee No.6. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the instant appeal, the Revenue stated that M/s.DCF Ltd.(Noticee No.7) failed to produce any documentary evidence of receipt and storage of the goods. Further, Shri S.H.Ansari of M/s.N.C.C.F. has stated that he contacted Md. Tufani (Noticee No.2) over phone but he did not come forward to purchase the goods, which seems untrue as evident from the cheques. It is also stated by the Revenue that Md.Tufani (Noticee No.2) in his Writ Petition claimed that he entered into agreement with M/s.DCF for purchase of Betel Nuts. It is also contended that M/s.NCCF, Kanpur (Noticee No.11) abetted alongwith M/s.NCCF, Patna and M/s.DCF, Kanpur in order to cover-up the smuggling activity of Md.Tufani. 5. I find that M/s.NCCF, Patna Kanpur and M/s.DC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rejected. I do not see the need of imposing penalty on the Respondent Noticees and the O-in-O needs no interference. 6. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, I do not find any material on record of the involvement of the respondents herein. In any event, the respondents are under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India and therefore it is required to establish direct evidence to involve the respondents in the alleged offence. Revenue failed to produce any such materials in their grounds of appeal. Therefore, I agree with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner(Appeals). 7. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
