9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a penalty of 1,00,000/- (approx.) was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4-11-06 at around 1 AM, the Customs Officers intercepted a Thela carrying 768 kgs. of red sanders wood at the border of Nepal. The Thela accompanied by a person on motorcycle. On seeing the Customs Officials th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant is that he is not anywhere concerned with the impugned goods. The present appellant asked for cross-examination of the employee of the Transport Company, who named the appellant and the same was denied. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant is anywhere concerned with the impugned goods. The appellant also relied upon the findings in the impugned order whereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order held that the show-cause notice was issued on the basis of circumstantial evidence and statement of employee of the Transport Company. The appellant requested for cross-examination and employee of the Transport Company who named appellant and the same was denied by the adjudicating authority. The only evidence against the appellant is that in the consignment note, when it has been mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
