2008 (9) TMI 388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tax Appeals were not involved in the smuggling activities and has, therefore, found that imposition of penalty to the extent of 1.50 lakhs each on this evidence was not justified and accordingly, the penalty was deleted, this being a finding of fact arrived at after appreciation of evidence, we are of the opinion that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, both these appeals are dismissed.
K.A. Puj and Rajesh H. Shukla, JJ. [Order per : K.A. Puj, J. (Oral)]. - The Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad has filed these two Tax Appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether in the facts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - each. He submitted that initially, Mr. Pragnesh Rajendrakumar Choksi has given his statement on 9-4-1999 wherein he has specifically admitted that the delivery of the gold in question was taken from the present respondents. However, after four days, the said Mr. Choksi has retracted his statement. In his retracted statement, it was stated that the goods were purchased from M/s. Amrapali and the same were to be sent to M/s. S. Kapoor, Mumbai. He has further submitted that over and above the statement of Mr. Pragnesh Choksi, the Customs Authorities have also recorded the statement of Anilkumar Baldevbhai Patel, an employee of one angadia company named M/s. Vishnubhai Ambalal & Company, wherein also involvement of the respondents was clearly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... apart from the fact that the statements of these persons are in the nature of statements of co-accused and require independent evidence, Mr. Pragnesh Choksi has clarified in his subsequent statement that he had gone to the shop of M/s. Krupa to enquire about angadias for carrying the gold to Bombay for its onward delivery. There is no independent evidence to hold that 40 gold bars belong to Mr. Deepak or Mr. Dilip of M/s. Krupa Traders or M/s. Krupa Ornaments. The Tribunal has also recorded that these two persons, in their first statements, had denied any connection with the seized goods. The Tribunal has further observed that even if it is presumed that the delivery took place from their above concern, the said factor is not sufficient to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X