9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which he implicated the appellant. Thus, there is no other supporting evidence or corroborative evidence or any incriminating document against the appellant. The only inculpatory statement of co-accused cannot be the basis for penalty. Accordingly, the penalty is not sustainable on the sole ground of statement of co-accused in the absence of any other corroborative independent evidence. In view of the above discussions, appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition also gets disposed of. - Shri M.P. Bohra, Member (J) [Order]. - Heard Shri K. Chatterjee, ld. Consultant for the appellant and Shri J.R.Madhiam, ld. JDR for the Revenue. 2.This appeal has been filed aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of Shri Krishan Prasad. The appellant, Shri Narayan Das preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Patna, who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 4.Shri Chatterjee for the appellant submits that there is no iota of evidence against the appellant except the statement of Krishan Prasad; the penalty cannot be imposed on the sale testimony of the co-accused without any independent corroboration. He relies on the following decisions : (1) Punam Chand Bhotra v. CC - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 237 (Tri. - Kol.); (2) Ram Lal Kataria Anr. v. CCE, Patna - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 33 (Tri. - Kol.); (3) Chander Shekhar, New Delhi - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 82 (C.B.E.C.), New Delhi; (4) J. Singh v. CC, New Delhi - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 175 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Government,"3. the revisional authority, has held that the evidence and the statement given by Mr. Dudani incriminates the petitioner. This was established with reference to the photographs and other intrinsic material. On that basis, he concluded that Mr. Dudani incriminated himself and the appellant in passing off foreign currency out of India, i.e., to Hong Kong." It is clear from the above that the other incriminating material was also available on record. But in the present case, there is no other supporting evidence or corroborative evidence or any incriminating document against the appellant. The only inculpatory statement of co-accused cannot be the basis for penalty. Accordingly, the penalty is not sustainable on the sole g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
