9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gling of charas. The Appellant produced the evidences which were verified by the Customs Authorities and Mr. Prem, Manager of Asian Motors confirmed the purchase of the car. - Imposition of penalty on appellant not justified. - C/85/2008-SM(BR) - 1545/2008-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 23-9-2008 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri Shiv Pandey, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Verma, DR, for the Respondent. [Order].- The Appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24-7-2006, the Customs Officers intercepted a Tata Siera Car bearing Regn. No. DL-3C/E-5130 at the barrier of L.C.S. Gauriphanta. On ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted this position. He further submits that there is no evidence that the Appellant in any way connected with the seized car and goods. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that Shri Dharamveer in his initial statement accepted that Shri Gurvinder Singh is the owner of the car and registration certificate was in the name of the appellant. He further submits that the last delivery receipt shown the name of Ms. Sharda Devi, who is the last buyer. But Smt. Sharda Devi at the time of personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority denied the purchase of the car. He submits that the Appellant is the actual owner of the seized car and used it for smuggling of charas. He further submits that the driver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagar, New Delhi vide Delivery Receipt dated 11-2-2003. It is further revealed that M/s. Car Town sold the said vehicle to Shri Ashu Gupta vide Delivery Receipt dated 12-5-2003. It was ultimately sold to Smt. Sharda Devi W/o Shri Dharamveer vide Delivery Receipt dated 18-3-2006. 6. The Commissioner observed that in the absence of transfer of the car in the name of purchasers, the purported sale merely through Delivery Receipts does not help his case the same being not convincing. It has further been observed that the facts lead to believe that the Appellant is the actual owner of the seized car and by providing his car to smugglers of charas for importing charas from Nepal, he has also wilfully colluded in the operation of smuggling. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
