9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping agency and in the light of the document as that of Bill of Lading, the said allegations is not sustainable and the confirmation based thereupon is nothing but a result of presumption. This being a clear cut case of absence of any evidence against Rahul Sehgal, it shall be appropriate to hold that the adjudicating authority below has erred fastening liability upon the present appellant by way of imposition of penalty. The question of meeting of mind of the present appellant with said Saurabh Aggarwal gets closed with the element of doubt. Conspiracy being a criminal offence principle of criminal jurisprudence gets readily attracted. The foremost principle being that the benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of the accused. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement in smuggling of prohibited goods by providing IEC of M/s. Kirat Sales. It was also served upon Shri Rahul Sehgal and Saurab Aggarwal who have been alleged to have conspired for getting smuggled the prohibited goods as that of Chinese origin fire crackers under wrongly declared bicycle parts to propose recovery of the value of the goods found in those containers alongwith the interest and the proportionate penalties. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide order-in-Original No.14 dated 28.02.2018. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide the Order-under Challenge. 2. I have heard Shri Navneet Panwar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Tamanna Alam, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 3. It is men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant documents, if any, to his defense. Benefit of doubt has rightly been denied by Commissioner (Appeals) to Rahul Sehgal. The findings with respect to the present appellant in para 39.2.1 of the impugned order have been impressed upon, denying any alleged infirmity or illegality in the order. The appeal in hand is prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the entire record, I observe and hold a follows:- Admittedly the investigation in the present case initiated and the containers were seized at the stage prior to clearance of the goods i.e. at the stage where no bill of entry was filed. The only document available on record is Bill of Ladding. Apparently and admittedly, the said document mentions t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said statement there is no substantial evidence to support the said allegation against Rahul Sehgal. The only evidence against the appellant therefore, is nothing but a third party evidence that too an oral statement recorded at the stage of investigation. There is no effort on part of Department to corroborate the said third party statement as against the present appellant. 8. Apparently and admittedly, present appellant is the importer of bicycle products. Admittedly the impugned consignment was not in the name of M/s. Rahul Traders the importing firm of the appellant, but was in the name of M/s. Kirat Sales Corporation. Though the show cause notice recites that the consignment was initially booked in the name of M/s. Rahul Trader ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
