TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... length above. The ld.Counsel has not refuted the findings of the adjudicating authority except that the statement of the co-accused has no value in the eye of law. There are various materials available on record apart from the statements to implicate the appellant, therefore, the imposition of penalty is warranted - penalty on Shri Binod Kumar Yadav upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/138, 149 & 150/10 - FO/A/75228-75230/2017 - Dated:- 28-2-2017 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member(Judicial) Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate for Appellant No.1 and Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for Appellant Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary All the appellants filed these app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Directorate [2007 (220) ELT 3 (SC)] b) Asstt.Collector, Customs v. Amrik Singh [2014 (301) ELT 170 (P H) c) S.N.Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs [2016 (331) ELT 33 (Del.)] He also submitted that the driver of the truck Shri Krishna Mahato had no knowledge of the alleged smuggled goods. Shri Krishna Mahato is an illiterate person. They had taken the consignment as per direction of a person of M/s.Yadav Transport. It is further submitted that Shri Sunil Singh, the owner of vehicle, had no knowledge of the loading of the alleged smuggled goods and that there is not an iota of evidence of knowledge of the appellants of the alleged smuggled goods and therefore imposition of penalty and confiscation of the truck are liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.Yadav Transport, Gulab Bagh, Purnea, he was going to Purnea for loading Maize. He also stated that M/s.Yadav Transport loaded Betel nuts by way of cheating although the negotiation was for the loading of Maize. I find that the statements of both the appellants, Shri Sunil Singh and Shri Krishna Mahato are hiding the truth, for reasons best known to them and therefore, the imposition of penalty and confiscation of the vehicles are justified. However, the quantum of penalty should be reduced after considering the role of the appellants. It is seen that Shri Krshna Mahato was also in judicial custody. Regarding imposition of penalty on Shri Binod Kr. Yadav, the finding of the adjudicating authority is reproduced under:- Noticee No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.WB-23B-1937, WB-23A 6227 or the owners/drivers of these vehicles at any time. In his statement dated 19.03.09, when he was asked as to how many times he contacted on mobile no.9932786160 between 1.10.08 and 10.01.08, he flatly said that he neither knew about this number nor had ever talked to this number. When his reply was compared by showing him the call details of his mobile no.9934445460, according to which, he had talked many times on mobile no.9932486160 between 1.10.08 and 10.10.08, he replied that he could not recognize this number. When he was told that this number belonged to Sri Nishi Kant Ghosh, owner of vehicle no.WB 23A 6227, he replied that he had talked only two to three times on this number, which I find is contrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings of the adjudicating authority except that the statement of the co-accused has no value in the eye of law. I am unable to accept the contention of the ld.Advocate. There are various materials available on record apart from the statements to implicate the appellant, therefore, the imposition of penalty is warranted. I noticed that Shri Binod Kr.Yadav had not co-operated with the investigating officer regarding information of ownership of seized goods. Hence, the quantum of penalty on the appellant is justified. In view of the above discussions the penalty imposed on Shri Sunil Singh and Shri Krishna Mahato are reduced to ₹ 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and ₹ 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) respectively. And bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
