9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs, Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal that the order of the Court exonerating an accused under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. was adequate to exonerate the accused in the adjudication proceedings is correct and valid in law, especially when the accused had also participated in the adjudication proceedings? and (ii) Whether the findings of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in its Final Order No. 1059 of 2006 dated 9-11-2006 [2007 (209) E.L.T. 271 (Tribunal)] is sustainable on the ground that the first respondent is discharged as not guilty of the offences in the criminal proceedings is enough to set aside the impugned order dated 28-3-2002? 2. It is the case of the appellant that based on specific intel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal on the premise that the criminal case initiated at the instance of the appellant has ended in acquittal in favour of the first respondent. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the SIIB had booked the case on Specific Intelligence that sandalwood was being smuggled out in the guise of export cargo by the first respondent. The officers of the SIIB detained the container and unearthed the goods, after a detailed adjudication, the original authority confiscated the entire goods and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the first respondent on the ground that he was actively involved in smuggling the goods, which factum has been totally lost sight of by the Tribunal while allowing the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein, before this Court in the criminal proceedings and before the Tribunal are verbatim same, neither there is a deletion nor addition in it. In those factual circumstances of the case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by stating that on the very same charges levelled against the first respondent, this Court, in the Criminal Revision, discharged him from all the charges and hence, the first respondent cannot be thrusted with penalty in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as there was no material to connect him with the alleged charges. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the departmental proceedings cannot be compared with a criminal proceeding and for proving departmental charges, the preponderance of probability is enough, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
