TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnesses is of no help - Admittedly, the goods in question has been recovered from the personal custody of the appellant. Therefore, there is no requirement to give cross-examination to the appellant of the panch witnesses. The value of gold is ₹ 6,26,258/- and redemption fine and penalties are imposed of ₹ 1 lakh each which are highly excessive, therefore, the redemption fine and penalty are reduced to Rs,50,000/- each. Appeal allowed in part. - C/70870/2016(SM) - A/71084/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocate - for the Appellant. Shri Mohd. Altaf, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods are liable for confiscation and same can be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1 lakh and penalty of ₹ 1 lakh under Section 112 (b) of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant have explained the source of procurement of seized goods in question that the same has been purchased from M/s D.S. Traders, Amritsar and the appellant has gone to Nepal for having the holy darshan in Bageshwari Mandir, Nepalganj, Nepal. As the source of procurement of goods in question has been explained, therefore, the gold is not liable for confiscation. It is also submitted that the panch witnesses has not been allowed to be cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, it is a case of smuggling of gold by the appellant from Nepal to India. In that circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, qua confiscation of goods in question. Therefore, order of confiscation of the goods in question is affirmed. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that no cross-examination of panch witnesses was granted. I find that in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Apex court has held that when the goods have been recovered in the custody of the appellant itself during the course of investigation, in that circumstances by providing cross-examination of the witnesses is of no help. Admittedly, the goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
