9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , dated 2-7-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner regarding confiscation of the truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act as and applicable to Central Excise Rules and imposition of penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on each of the appellants under Rule 209A. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 8-12-1995, the Central Excise Officers sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redemption fine of Rs. 9,000/-. He also ordered the confiscation of the truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act, but gave an option to the owner to get it redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/-. He further imposed penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on all the present appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. That order of the Asstt. Commissioner has been affirmed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y inference that he had any knowledge about the clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty by the owner. Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, owner of the truck, was not even present at the time of loading/unloading of the goods. Therefore, he could not be said to have any knowledge about the clandestine removal of the goods by the owner. Even the driver of the truck was under no legal obligat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the present appellants regarding the confiscation of the truck and imposition of penalties under Rule 209A, cannot be legally sustained and is set aside. Consequently, all the appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief if any, permissible under the law.
X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
