TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 2.15 lakh (Rupees two lakh fifteen thousand) on the finding that the same were of smuggled nature. In addition, the duty of Rs. 13,17,733.00 (Rupees thirteen lakh seventeen thousand seven hundred and thirty-three) has been confirmed against the appellants in respect of the said goods, along with the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) on the main appellant-company, M/s. Siddhivinayak Steel. Personal penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) has been imposed upon Shri Manilal Shah and that of Rs. 15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) upon Shri Jasraj G. Mehta. 2. As per narration of facts in the impugned Order, the Department receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... muggled character. 4. The above contentions were not accepted by the Commissioner who passed the impugned Order. 5. Learned Advocate, Shri S.K. Kantawala appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned Order is liable to be set aside on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction itself. He relies upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Union of India v. Ram Narain Bishwanath reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 224 (S.C.) vide which the Tribunal s decision as reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 202 (T) laying down that the goods cleared at Paradip Port (Orissa) but seized by the Customs Authorities in West Bengal, has to be adjudicated by the Customs Authorities having jurisdiction over Paradip Port, was upheld. Similarly, our atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellants could not disclose the lorry numbers or the specific description of the goods like width, length, etc., in support of his finding that the goods are of contraband nature. He submits that it is not possible for any trader to remember all these factors. In any case, the appellants having produced the invoices under which they have procured the goods, the Commissioner was not justified in confiscating the same in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. 7. Shri R.K. Pardeshi, learned J.D.R., for the Revenue appearing for the Revenue supports the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner. 8. We are of the view that the appeals can be disposed of on the preliminary point of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we take up all the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
