9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same were meant for export to Bangladesh. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on each of the three captioned appellants, has been imposed upon. 2. As per facts on records BSF officers seized 195 bundles of clothes of different varieties from the 'Char' area which was around 2 kms. away from the Border. The recovery was made during 22.00 hrs. on 1-12-01 to 6.00 hrs. on 2-12-01. The goods were subsequently handed over to Jalangi Customs on 4-12-01, when the same were seized on a reasonable belief that they were being attempted to illegal export to Bangladesh. 3. The three appellants in question subsequently, on 4-1-02 claimed the ownership of the goods in question and submitted that the same were purchased by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions, Trades Callings and Employments Tax Act, 1979. 5. On the above facts, the appellants were issued show cause notices proposing confiscation of the Textile materials in question as also the personal penalty upon the three appellants. The three show cause notices culminated into the impugned order and hence the present appeals. 6. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyaya, learned Consultant appears on behalf of the appellant along with Shri P.K. Ghosh, Consultant and reiterates the same submissions made before the adjudicating authority. His main contention is that in spite of the appellant having claimed that the goods were seized from a place much away from the border and in spite of their having placed seven certificates from the local r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms officers deputed to enquire into the place of seizure themselves, admitted that the place of seizure by the BSF authorities, in identical set of facts and circumstances, was not correct. He also submits that in all these judgments, the Tribunal has extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and has set aside the order of confiscation and penalty. Shri A.K. Mondal, learned SDR, appearing for the Revenue reiterated the reasonings adopted by the Commissioner in her impugned order. 7. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner. As regards the place of interception, the Commissioner has denied the appellants' claim on the ground that they have failed mise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. Specific area from where they were recovered is also not mentioned. There is nothing on record to show that an ordinary prudent man would leave the goods worth Rs. 44 lakhs (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs) at a place near the border, unattended by any person for supervision at the time of seizure. 8. The Commissioner has, further, noticed that the volume of business and financial status of the noticees is such that it is difficult to surmise that such a huge amount of money, required for the purchase of such a bulk quantity of textile materials, could be provided by them. However, the appellants have contended that they have taken the goods on credit. In any case, the above reasoning of the Commissioner is in the nature of her own pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
