TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. These two appeals are directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 and Rs. 20,000.00 on S/Shri Rajendra Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad respectively, by the original authority. The same were subsequently reduced to a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 and Rs. 4,000.00 respectively, by the appellate authority. 2. The main charge against the appellants was that they were concerned wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that there were no substantial evidence on record to implicate the appellants. The appellants were neither owners nor have any connection with the smuggling and transportation of the impugned goods. They were merely labourers proceeding to Kanpur and Delhi. He pleads that the statement of one of the co-accused cannot be taken as an evidence against the appellants. In this connection, he has refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statement of the co-accused, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, inculpating himself as well as the petitioner can be used as a substantive evidence. Shri Roy has also invited my attention to the decision of the Honourable Tribunal in the case of Mohmedbhai Asrafbhai Kimsarwala v. Collector of Customs reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 573 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oborated by any independent evidence, cannot be taken as a Gospel Truth. Therefore, reliance on the statement of the co-accused without corroboration is unacceptable in law. The reliance of Revenue on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Naresh J. Sukhawani is of no avail inasmuch as the statement of the co-accused in that case inculpates himself as well as the petitioner. In the instant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
