TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, the appeal itself has been taken up for disposal. 2. The matrix of the case is that Shri Navneet Goswami of Agra was intercepted by the Officers of Customs at Muzaffarpur Railway Station on 19-2-1995 and on his deposition that he was carrying silver in his bag, he was taken to the Customs Office. On search, the said bag was found to contain 12 pi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained under pressure, coersion threat, and without administering to the appellant the mandatory warning embodied in Section 164(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and as such, the same is not admissible in evidence as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1988 SC 1883. He further submits that the Customs authorities did not acknowledge the vouchers covering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rden to prove that the goods are not smuggled lies upon the appellant. The learned Consultant argues that the Adjudicatirg authority has misquoted the Notification. He argues that in the present case, the Department has failed to discharge the burden of proof. 2.2 The learned Consultant argues that inasmuch as the Show-cause Notice was not served on the appellant within the stipulated 6 months p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amba Lal v. Union of India and Others reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1321 (S.C.) wherein it was held that if the Customs authorities had relied upon the statement made by the appellant at the time of search and seizure in order to reject his case but his request for copy of the statement and inspection of records was not granted, the Customs authorities were no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... except the retracted statement of the appellant, it must be held that the aforementioned allegation is not proved. Admittedly, the Show-cause Notice was issued beyond the statutory time limit of 6 months and as such the appellant is entitled for restoration of the seized silver slabs. Having regard to those factors, I am of the opinion the impugned order merits to be set aside in its entirety. Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
