TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to justify the imposition of penalty to Shri R. C. Shukla. It has not been brought out as to the exact role he played in rendering the case liable for confiscation in the Show Cause Notice nor the adjudication authority conclude that he would have been benefitted in any manner had the import been through. He understandably the revenue cannot conclude with a clinical precision. However the case cannot be built on the basis of vague statement of the co-accused and more existence of call records. It is reinforced by the fact that no evidence of any sort has been found during the search of the Appellant residence. It is also not clear whether investigation could reach of the actual importer. In such situation imposition of penalty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows that all the concerned persons were in very frequent touch with each other. 2. Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that Appellant did not commit any Act rendering goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(e), 111(f), 111(j), 111(h); Shri Pansare approached him for help in clearance of the above imports; The Appellant did not entertain him even when he came alongwith Shri Anwar; search at the Appellants residence and office did not lead to recovery of any evidence; Shri Anwar who is the co-accused; in his statement dated 28.12.2004 alleged that Shri Iqbal of M/s. Gaylord Impex has financial dealings with the Appellant; there was no allegation regarding M/s. R.A. Impex and M/s. Modern Impex; moreover Shri Anwar ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/-, ₹ 20,00,000/- and ₹ 10,00,000/- has imposed on the Appellant. In going through the Order in Original the role of Appellant was shown to be the main person behind the whole case and that is based on the statement of Shri Pansare who had claimed before the CHA that he has taken up with Shri C.R. Shukla and the statement of Shri Anwar saying that he had financial dealing with M/s. Gaylord Impex one of the importer and the fact that there are some call records showing conversation between the person involved, other than this no evidence has been brought to justify the imposition of penalty to Shri R. C. Shukla. It has not been brought out as to the exact role he played in rendering the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
