2003 (3) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 2-7-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner regarding confiscation of the truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act as and applicable to Central Excise Rules and imposition of penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on each of the appellants under Rule 209A. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 8-12-1995, the Central Excise Officers seized .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n fine of Rs. 9,000/-. He also ordered the confiscation of the truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act, but gave an option to the owner to get it redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/-. He further imposed penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on all the present appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. That order of the Asstt. Commissioner has been affirmed by the Commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat he had any knowledge about the clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty by the owner. Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, owner of the truck, was not even present at the time of loading/unloading of the goods. Therefore, he could not be said to have any knowledge about the clandestine removal of the goods by the owner. Even the driver of the truck was under no legal obligation and other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X