TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Police Station for the theft of the seal of the Department. Further, no Mahazar was prepared on the spot for the recovery of the alleged seal and the said alleged seal was never shown to the appellant. Revenue has not been able to prove the allegations against the appellants with cogent and convincing evidence so as to warrant the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/20366/2019-SM, C/20367/2019-SM - Final Order Nos. 20475-20476/2019 - Dated:- 20-6-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms. Amrin Fathima, Advocate - For the Appellant Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) - F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the office premises of M/s. MBK Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Appellant was harassed and dictated to write down what was dictated to him. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 10.12.2018 under Section 124 of the Customs Act was issued to the appellant calling him to show-cause as to why a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act should not be imposed on him. Appellant submitted reply dated 26.12.2018 to the show-cause notice and made a request for supplying the copies of video footages of the examination of the appellant as the same was recorded under threat and harassment. But the said request was never accepted nor provided with the copies of video footage to the appellant. In the reply to the show-cause notice appellant had completely retracte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 117 of the Customs Act on the appellant. She further submitted that documentary evidence on record has been brushed aside by the Department and had heavily relied upon the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. She also submitted that till today the Customs officers have not lodged any complaint regarding the missing of any Customs seal from any of the Department of the Customs. Further the officers of the Customs Shri. Ritesh Kumar Singh and Smt. Dheeraj Kumar Sing had admitted in their 108 statements and deposed in their cross-examination that they had no knowledge about the missing of any seal from any Department. Further Annexure A1 to the show-cause notice did not mention about the date on w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Seventilal Karsondas Modi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another AIR 1979 SC 705 c. K.I. Pavunny Vs. Asst. Collr. (HQ) C. Ex, Collectorate, Cochin 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (SC) 5. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that on both the appellants penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act has been imposed solely on the basis of their statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act given before the officers of SIIB. Further I find that the appellants in their reply to the show-cause notice has completely retracted their statement given earlier and has alleged torture and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
