TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatements of the co-noticee cannot be adopted as a legal evidence to penalize the accused unless the same are corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence. Even the statements of various persons are not conclusive to establish the appellants as the importer of the goods as the same are in the nature of hear-say evidence. No deponent has clearly mentioned that they were fully aware of the fact of the appellants being the owner of the goods and have merely mentioned that they were told so by the other concerned persons. There is virtually no evidence in the present case so as to show that the appellant were the actual importer of the goods - Revenue has not made any enquiries with the supplier of the goods so as to establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s noticed that the order impugned before the Commissioner (Appeals) was passed on 22.03.2018, and received by the appellants on 24.03.2018. The appeals their against was filed by the appellants before Commissioner (Appeals) on 23.05.2018, but the same were returned by the registry as the same were not accompanied with the evidence of pre-deposit. The said fact is evident from registered entry No. 4964 placed on record by the appellant. Thereafter, the appeals were again filed on 27.06.2018 and were accepted by the office of Commissioner (Appeals) even though they were not accompanied with the pre-deposit particulars. In such a scenario, the initial date of filing of the appeal has to be taken as the relevant date. Inasmuch as the appeals we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout the mention of MRP was in violation of the provisions of the legal Metrology Act, 2009, the officers entertained a view that the same was with an intention to smuggle the cigarettes without payment of duty and by illegally entering into India. As a consequence the same was seized under a Panchanama dated 17.12.2016. 6. During the post seizure investigations, statements of various persons were recorded. As the bill of lading was provided by shipping company known as M/s. Korea Marine Transport Company (herein after referred to as KMTC), statement of their manager, documentation, Shri Ajay Kumar was recorded on 27.12.2016. He deposed that container was booked by Tania (ASIA), Logistics PTE, Singapore and consignees name was declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them alongwith providing of PAN Card and other documents in the name of Ankit Enterprises. Further statement of one Shri Lalit Katoch, MD of all-Track Logistics was recorded deposing that he received a call from one Shri Pawan Kumar Singhal, regarding the clearance of consignment imported by M/s. Ankit Enterprises Statement of Shri Pawan Kumar Singhal was also recorded, wherein he admitted having received a call from one of his client friend Shri Dayanand Sharma requesting for clearance of the consignment imported in the name of M/s. Ankit Enterprises and he was aware that only corrugated boxes are there in the consignment. Further statement of one Shri Mohan Kumar Jha was also recorded disclosing that he works on Commission basis for clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em. The notice also proposed confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties upon the other appellants. As the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) stands passed in relation to the present two appellants only, their appeals are being taken up for final disposal. 9. On going through the impugned orders as also the submissions made by both the sides it is seen that the adjudicating authority has concluded that the present two appellants were the mastermind of the import of the cigarettes and were the actual owners of the imported goods based upon the statements of various persons recorded during the investigation. It may be noted that the bill of entry was not filed by any person in India. The bill of lading revealed the consigne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the shipping agency etc. There is no evidence of remittance of money by the appellant to the foreign supplier. Even when Shri Ajay Kumar, Manager KMTC contacted the appellants for delivery of the goods, they denied having any connection with the consignment imported in the name of Ankit Enterprises. As rightly argued by the learned Advocate, that if the present appellants were the owners of the imported consignment, there is no reason for them to deny any knowledge about the import of consignment. Further, as disclosed by the appellant that it might be Shri Mehul Jain of Mumbai, who had imported the consignment, Revenue has not bothered to make any investigations at his end. The reliance on the cheque amount of Rs. One Lakh paid from accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
