9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms (Prev.), CC(P), West Bengal, Kolkata. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/ CUS (PREV)/ WB/AKR/96/2021 dated 27.01.2021. Aggrieved against the imposition of penalty on him, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was issued with Summons dated 29.6.18 and 27.8.18 by the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Siliguri Regional Unit in connection to Seizure Case No.03/CL/IMP/DRI/SLG/18-19 dated 24.5.18 requiring his appearance before the DRI authority. On 05.09.2018, the statement of the appellant was recorded. During the course of investigation, the appellant was informed about the seizure case wherein allegedly one kg gold was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, which has been upheld in the impugned order by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The appellant submits that vide his letter dated 25.03.19, submitted on 03.04.19 before the Ld. Adjudicating authority, he had categorically stated that the entire case against him is based upon the statement dated 24.05.18 of Krishna Kumar Gupta. The appellant prayed for opportunity of cross-examination of Shri. Krishna Kumar Gupta, which was accorded by the adjudicating authority. On 8.8.19 through the subsequent personal hearing, cross-examination of Krishna Kumar Gupta was held before the Ld. Adjudicating authority and Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta had vehemently denied his alleged statement dated 24.5.18 as improper and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Krishna Kumar Gupta. We observe that one kg of gold was recovered from Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta on 24.5.18 by DRI officers and Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta has stated that the appellant as the important person connected with the smuggling of gold in that case. We observe that apart from the statement of Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta there was no other evidence to implicate the appellant in the present case. We observe that the appellant had categorically stated that he was known to said Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta since both of them were working together at Chhat Puja Committee at Phuentshelling. Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta had also corroborated such fact during the course of cross-examination. In such circumstance, we observe that no adverse conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o conclude that the appellant is a habitual offender and is involved in the smuggling activity in this case. 9. We observe that the appellant has been imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. We observe that there is no circumstance in the present case where the provision of Section 112 ibid can be applied against the appellant. Evidence available on record does not indicate that the appellant has played any role in the alleged offence which rendered the impugned goods liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. We observe that the Ld. Adjudicating authority had imposed penalty upon the appellant under Section 112(a) & 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 together. We observe that Clause (a) & Clause (b) of section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
