9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the impugned order dated 30-7-2003 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in C.A. No. C/289-290/2002-NB(S) [2003 (160) E.L.T. 1012 (Tribunal)] remitting the matter to the competent authority to decide the controversy afresh after serving a notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. This court by the order dated 16th March, 2009, has framed the following questions of law :- (1) Whether the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that none of the ingredinets of Section 121 of the Customs were attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case or not? (2) Whether Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no gold biscuits was recovered from the premises of Ram Chandra Jaiswal. 6. It has been alleged that during the course of search on 19th April, 1999, one Krishan Prasad Keshari had confronted the officers of the customs department at the house of Ram Chandra Jaiswal and Krishan Prasad Keshari tried to run away. However, he was caught hold by the customs officers and an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was recovered from Krishan Prasad Keshari in the denomination of Rs. 500/-. 7. Statement of Krishan Prasad Keshari was recorded on 19th April, 1999, and on 20th April, 1999 at Customs office, Nautanwa, Krishan Prasad Keshari has stated that he is a servant of M/s. Laxmi Readymade Garments, Ballia, and the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly confiscated. He has relied upon the statement of Krishan Prasad Keshari recorded under Section 108 of the Act. All the three appeals were rejected. However, Rajesh Kumar Soni and Krishan Prasad Keshari have impugned the order of the appellate authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal vide order dated 30th July, 2003 and remitted the matter. The Tribunal took a view that no notice under Section 124 of the Act was issued to Rajesh Kumar Soni. Tribunal observed that when Rajesh Kumar Soni raised claim with regard to the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, then he should have been given opportunity of hearing by serving a notice under Section 124 of the Act. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that the Customs De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscuits. 14. Moreover, Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal moved a representation stating that the amount in question belongs to him. Though, the statement made under Section 108 of the Act may be believed, but, it does not mean that other persons who have got interest over the property, do not have got any right to represent their cause. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred hereinabove by the learned counsel for the appellant have held that the statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act shall deem to be a statement given in a judicial proceeding. But, the statement so given, is rebuttable by the affected parties. Since, Sri Rajesh Kumar Soni has filed an application, then, he should have been given opportunity of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is settled rule of interpretation that every word of statute should be given a meaning. The provisions contained under Section 124 of the Act provide that no order of confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under the said Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice enabling him to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard. 18. The Legislature to their wisdom has used the words "any person followed by word "owner or such person." It means that during the course of proceedings, owner as well as other interested persons shall have right to raise their claim. In case the claim is advanced for any ground whatsoever, such person should be heard. We cannot exclude any word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
