9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 07.04.2014. I agree with the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the retraction of the statement after a lapse of more than 8(eight) months without any cogent reason cannot be accepted - confiscation and penalty justified. Penalties on other persons - Held that: - the Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on other persons, who had not filed any app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons to confiscate the seized silver and to impose penalties on various persons. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the seized silver absolutely of ₹ 2,20,396/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on the appellant amongst others. By the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterates the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals). 5. I find from the impugned order that the appellant contended before the Commissioner(Appeals) that prescribed procedure was not followed for drawing the sample of the seized goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) verified the matter from the Forbesgunj Customs Division. The Superintendent (Prev.) by letter dated 17.10.2014, informed that prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without any evidence. Therefore, the confiscation of the imported silver is justified and the imposition of penalty is warranted. 8. The case laws relied upon by the ld.Counsel would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of K.N.Eswaran v. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy (supra), the appellant was a jeweller making various ornaments out of silver. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
