https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166860 Penalties under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act were sustained against the first two appellants because the seizure of foreign-origin fabrics and metallic yarn from the lorries, the drivers' and cleaner's voluntary statements, delivery notes, and corroborating witness evidence formed a coherent chain of incriminating circumstances; minor inconsistencies did not undermine the earliest statements, and Section 123 was held inapplicable because the goods were recovered from the vehicles rather than the appellants' personal possession. The individual penalty on the third appellant was set aside because the notice had been issued only to the partnership firm and not to him personally, making the adjudication procedurally defective and not fit for remand. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:31:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166860 Penalties under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act were sustained against the first two appellants because the seizure of foreign-origin fabrics and metallic yarn from the lorries, the drivers' and cleaner's voluntary statements, delivery notes, and corroborating witness evidence formed a coherent chain of incriminating circumstances; minor inconsistencies did not undermine the earliest statements, and Section 123 was held inapplicable because the goods were recovered from the vehicles rather than the appellants' personal possession. The individual penalty on the third appellant was set aside because the notice had been issued only to the partnership firm and not to him personally, making the adjudication procedurally defective and not fit for remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166860