9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri V.R. Sethi, ld. Counsel submits that maximum penalty during the period of the offence under Section 117 of the Act was Rs. 1,000 (one thousand) and therefore, if at all any penalty could be imposed, that could not exceed Rs. 1,000/-. 3. On merits of the case ld. Counsel submits that the entire case of the Department is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no evidence in the form of statement of the appellant or anybody else to implicate the appellant. He submits that the SCN does not specifically mention the section violated or the tenor of the SCN does not bring out the guilt of his client. He submits that simply because there was a computer report fed in the name of the appellant it does not make the appellant punishable with the penalty under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the natural presumption was that whatever entry was made in the EDI machine (computer) was the entry made by the appellant and by nobody else as nobody else has the pass word. It ensures privacy and secrecy of the data in the computer. He submits that the ld. Commissioner has rendered a categorical finding that the appellant had connived with the smuggling of cellular phones. He, therefore, sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd marked to the officers concerned. The Department has not produced any evidence to show that this particular bill of entry on which the impugned examination report was recorded, was allotted to or marked to the appellant. We also note that the SCN does not bring out the specific allegations against the appellant nor any particular section of Customs Act has been mentioned though it was argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
