SHRI BRIJ MOHAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Shri Brij Mohan And Ors.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Click here to view full judgement.
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) -
(1.) THESE four appeals arise out of a common order and hence being heard and are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case ate as follows:
Acting on information one Shri Tilak Raj and other appellants were intercepted at about 8.00 P.M. on 25.3.1983 while alighting from the train at Amritsar. They were searched and various quantities of silver were found concealed by them in waslis around their waists. Their statements were recorded and investigations were taken up. Show cause notice dated 7.10.1983 was issued to all of them and adjudication that followed resulted in the impugned order dated 10.1.985 under which the seized silver was ordered to be confiscated and penalties were imposed. Aggrieved by this order the appellants preferred appeals to this Tribunal which were disposed of by order No. A/100 -113/88 -NRB dated 23.3.1988, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication as the Bench was of the opinion that the adjudication had not been fairly conducted. After the order of the remand parties were heard and additional information viz. (a) letter of the Assistant Collector (Preventive) New Delhi and (b) statement of Shri Baldev Raj Yadava, Proprietor of M/s. B.R. and Company and (c) Bill No. 604 dated 25.5.1983 along with page 9 of 'Roker' were supplied to the appellants. The order now challenged was passed by the Additional Collector who once again confiscated absolutely 30 pieces of silver weighing 32.010 Kgs. valued at Rs. 1,21,638/ - under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 35,000/ - on Shri Tilak Raj and Rs. 5000/ - on the other 3 appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
(3.) WE have heard Shri M. Ganesan, earned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Bhushan, learned SDR for the Department.
The recovery of the silver is not denied by the appellants. It is their case that the silver was lawfully acquired by Shri Tilak Raj at Delhi and that the other appellants had been taken by him along with him for transporting the silver to Amritsar. In his statement at the time of seizure Shri Tilak Raj stated that he had acquired the silver from M/s. Shiv Trading Company at Delhi. However, subsequently in the reply to the show cause notice, he stated that he ad acquired the silver from M/s. B.R. and Company and not from Shiv Trading Company whose name had been given by mistake since he was having dealings with both firms. Admittedly there was no transport voucher for the transport of silver. However, the appellants contend that Shri Tilak Raj had with him at the time of seizure sale voucher issued by B.R. and Company.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.