9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts lawful possession. The abovesaid contraband was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Kishan Gopal Verma was quizzed. In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, he admitted the recovery and seizure of the abovesaid gold biscuits and disclosed that those had been purchased by him from M/s. Kishan Grover, Prem Jewellers, M/s. Babu Ram, Om Parkash and M/s. Pooran Mal through brokers namely Subhash and Suresh and documents in support of these were lying with his Chartered Accountant Shri Subhash. However, it transpired that the statement made by him was false. Thereafter, he changed his stance and subsequently disclosed that he was not aware of the antecedents of Subhash and Suresh. He was taken into judicial custody. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout any instructions having been given to the Muneem for issuance of the impugned bills. It is averred that Muneem and the petitioner also informed the Department that Sunil Kumar Jain is well versed in gold business and used to visit Sandeep Jain in his saree business. Consequently, notice was issued to Kishan Gopal Verma as well as the petitioner wherein they were called upon as to why gold in question should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed upon them. In response to the said notice, the petitioner denied these allegations. The petitioner also prayed that he wanted to cross-examine Kishan Gopal Verma, Narender Pal Chopra and Investigating Officer at the time of personal hearing in the matter. Personal hearing was gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishan Gopal Verma had expired, therefore, no penalty was imposed upon him. Under the circumstances, the petitioner withdrew the appeal vide order dated 29th August, 2005 in order to file the present writ petition. 4. It is averred that order of remand qua the co-noticee Kishan Gopal Verma was passed by different Bench of the Tribunal though by a common adjudicating order where both of them were penalised. Since the matter of both the co-noticees and the petitioner were interconnected, therefore, under these circumstances, once the matter of co-noticee was remanded back, it was in the fitness of things that even the petitioner's case ought to have been heard fresh and fresh adjudicating order have been passed even with regard to him. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purity of 24 cts. were also issued in the month of September, 2000 but were cancelled since Sandeep Jain had told him that the buyer was submitting ST-1 form. The bills bearing No. 34 dated 28-8-2000 and No. 35 dated 29-8-2000 for 14 and 17 pieces, respectively, of standard gold bars of ten tolas each, had been issued against form ST-1 on the advise of Sandeep Jain. Narender Pal Chopra stated that he used to issue the bills at the instructions of his employer Sandeep Jain. 6. Thereafter, Sandeep Jain was summoned repeatedly by the Customs Department but he had been evading appearance on the one pretext or the other. The prosecution case against Shri Sandeep Jain was lodged in the court of learned ACMM under Section 172/174/175 of the IPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affidavit. Sandeep Jain did not produce the records pertaining to sale tax for the year 2000-01. He admitted that he evaded to appear before the Customs authorities because he was apprehending his arrest. 7. On the other hand, Sunil Jain stated that despite his acquaintance with the Muneem, he never interfered or gave him any instructions for anything and that he had no knowledge about the above bills either. Sunil Jain also stated that he had never seen the original copy of the affidavit in question and also denied having taken the affidavit for attestation to the SDM. Sunil Jain also denied having known the customers shown in the bill book and denied having issued the same at any time. 8. The argument urged by the learned Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took a purile plea that he did not have any connection with the abovesaid contraband goods but same were dealt with by Sunil Jain, his brother-in-law and Narender Pal Chopra, his Muneem. He was the proprietor of the firm and amenable for all its wrongs. His explanation is a crass misrepresentation of facts. His statement is a mish-mash of bewildering contradictions and inconsistencies. The statements made by his brother in law and Muneem are ajar with the facts disclosed by Sandeep Jain. He has attempted to evade the truth by a quibble. We are unable to clap any importance with his plea. 11. It appears that the petitioners and Kishan Gopal Verma were working in league. The admission that petitioner himself signed the bills/vouchers as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
