TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant Sunder Sah. He confiscated the Indian currency of Rs. 2,53,501/- seized on 10-12-1990 from the possession of Shri V. Somasundaram at Room No. 101 of Hotel Sarmani. He also confiscated Rs. 10,75,000/- seized from the residence of Shri Somasundaram holding that the abovesaid amount represents the sale proceeds of smuggled silver bars. This case arises out of the seizure of certain silver bars from a Maruti Van driven by Shri V. Somasundaram. Six bundles containing brick shaped silver bars weighing 30 kg. were seized. Then, on the information of Shri Somasundaram, the hotel premises and [Room] No. 106 were also searched and an amount of Rs. 2,53,501/- were seized from the premises on the reasonable belief that they were the sale proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erception at the Hotel on 10-12-1990. Further, he booked a room for Shri Somasundaram at Hotel Sarmani by giving his address at Kanchipuram eventhough he was residing at Chintadripet, Madras-2. The Advocate appearing for Shri Sunder Sah stated in his written submissions that the address in Kanchipuram is that of his father-in-law where he had done initially business. He also stated that normally lodging houses give rooms only to persons other than residents of the city and that the theory of false address does not arise at all. The Advocate also further stated that Sunder Sah was accompanying Shri Somasundaram in the Maruti Van to the hotel to settle the dues for the room which was booked in his name. The Advocate further added that the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the knowledge that these silver bars which are liable for confiscation were kept in the van and that he was actively concerned in the business of the above silver blocks. The mere fact that he booked the room for Somasundaram is not sufficient to prove that he had the conscious knowledge that the van contained smuggled silver. He has given the address of Somasundaram while booking the room. In giving the address, he gave the address of Kanchipuram. It is not the case of the Department that Somasundaram is not residing at Kanchipuram. The mere fact that he had not given the address of Somasundaram as Chintadripet, Madras, is not sufficient to hold that he had the knowledge that the van in which he was travelling contained contraband silve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot a correct reasoning to come to the conclusion that their claims are not genuine. 5. The next ground which is relied on in the impugned order is that this amount is not properly accounted by the above three appellants. But the appellants had clearly mentioned that this amount was brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department. They have also received Assessment Orders in this regard. The learned adjudicating officer held that the appellants have not maintained accounts with respect to these amounts and those particulars are not produced. But in this case, Indian Currency is not a notified item. The burden is on the Department to prove that this amount represents the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. There is no statement from any per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officers, when he appeared as per Court directions, he not only refused to explain about the receipt of Rs. 10,10,000/- being the realisation of sale proceeds of the smuggled silver bars but also refused to divulge any information. Shri Somasundaram also refused to give any statement on the above aspect and walked away. These details were available in the reply telegram dated 14-1-1991 and 17-1-1991 sent by the Assistant Collector (Preventive) and Superintendent (Preventive) in response to the telegram No. 661 dated 12-1-1991; 662 dated 12-1-1991 received from Shri Somasundaram. 128. The documents seized from Shri V. Somasundaram bearing Sl. No. 33 as detailed supra clearly indicates that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was received by Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Yuwaraja 5 + 5 = (10) Rs. 15,00,000. This entry has no connection with the amount in question. In the statement of Shri V. Somasundaram, he has stated that this amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- represents the partial amount from the devotees of Lord Ayyappa. There is no nexus established between this amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and the amount of Rs. 10,75,000/- seized in this case. Except these three appellants none else claimed the same. These three appellants admittedly are residing in the same premises from where the amounts are seized. Since there are no claimants for this amount there is no reason to dis-believe their version that they are the owners. The mere non-accountal as to the receipt of this amount by them is not sufficient to hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
