TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. Heard Shri Faizal Farook, Advocate for Appellant and Shri K.K. Sanyal, JDR for Respondent. Learned Advocate submits that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that there was no evidence known to law in the records of the case on the basis whereof it could be said that the appellant had knowledge about the alleged contraband and secondly was connected and/or concerned with the same. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on sole basis that the appellant is a partner of the firm and looking after the business from Kolkata. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the penalty may be set aside. 3. D.R. supports the impugned order. He submits that the appellant is the proprietor of the transport company where from contraband goods has been recovered. The appellant is looking after the business fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke in Raxaul s transport office/godown from where the goods were recovered, the said transport company has many more transport offices/godowns situated at various towns and cities in India and each of the offices/godowns of the company must be manned by different persons or staff of the company . It is clear from the above finding that the appellant has been penalized on the basis of partner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artner of transport company. He should not have possibly known what was happening in Raxaul. Record of the case also clearly indicate that the appellant had no knowledge about the goods in question or their alleged smuggling from Nepal. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellant had instructed his employees to carry on such smuggling activities or had knowledge about the sm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
