9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any substantial question of law and the appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possibility of such large number of recorded discs being a part of consignments in light packages. It is also not certain as to the particular benefit obtained by the appellant in going through this elaborate deception as alleged when warehousing could have been resorted and in the light of eligibility of the appellant for the facility offered by section 74 and 75 of Customs Act, 1962: The acceptance of the shipping bills and the conclusion that the bills of entry were mirror images fortifies the claim of the appellant for eligibility to drawback under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. In these circumstances, the motive distances itself from the method and without motive there can be no offence. Learned Counsel places reliance on the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to examine whether the statement is true. If the Court on examination of the evidence finds that the retracted confession is true, that part of the inculpatory portion could be relied upon to base conviction. However, the prudence and practice require that Court would seek assurance getting corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution.' 8. According to us, the decision in re K. I. Pavunny doubtlessly permits reliance upon a confession to suffice but, nevertheless, the admonition to exercise prudence in practice by corroboration with other evidence cannot be ignored. Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in Sidhharth Shankar Roy v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2013 (291) ELT 244 (Tri.- Mumbai)], Learned Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the description of the imported goods. We failed to see the necessity for, or logic of, that." 4. In our view, since on merits, the Tribunal has given relief to the company of which the respondent is a Director, the question of penalty on the Director would be consequential and in any case, the order is a reasoned order raising no substantial question of law but is based on facts and no perversity has been shown to us. 5. We have by our separate order in Custom Appeal No.12 of 2023 filed by the appellant-revenue against the company have held that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court since in that case, appeal relates to classification which is maintainable only before the Supreme Court. 6. In view of the above, Custom Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
