9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) for possession of red sanders wood, ownership claim, circumstantial evidence, denial of cross-examination, liability for penalty.
The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) for possession of red sanders wood. The Customs Officers intercepted a Thela carrying 768 kgs. of red sanders wood at the border of Nepal, accompanied by a person on a motorcycle who escaped upon seeing the officials. Subsequently, 501 kgs. of red sanders wood was recovered from the Transport Company's godown. The appellant denied any link with the wood and ownership of the motorcycle during the investigation. The Manager of the Transport Company claimed that the present appellant is the owner of the impugned goods totaling 1269 kgs. The appellant contended that he had no connection with the goods and requested cross-examination of the employee who named him, which was denied. The appellant argued lack of evidence linking him to the goods and relied on the Commissioner (Appeals) finding of circumstantial evidence, deeming the impugned order unsustainable. The Revenue contended that the employee of the Transport Company stated that the appellant, a resident of Raxaul, visited the godown, inquired about the goods, and mentioned he would collect them soon, supported by a consignment note in his name. It was alleged that the goods were intended for illegal smuggling to Nepal, making the appellant liable for the penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the show-cause notice on circumstantial evidence and the employee's statement. The appellant's request for cross-examination was denied. The consignment note indicated the goods were booked by another individual, not the appellant, casting doubt on his ownership. With no further evidence linking the appellant to the goods, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed, entitling the appellant to consequential relief as per the law.
|
