2010 (4) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mumbai and Delhi. They book parcels from different parties and hand over the bags containing the parcels to the railways for transportation and on reaching of the bags containing the parcels at their destination, their employee receive the same and distribute the parcels to the respective consignees. In this case, on 24-8-05, two parcel bags which had been received by Sh. Prem Chander, an employee of the respondent company, were intercepted by the Customs Officers outside the New Delhi Railway Station and on examination of those bags in presence of the independent witnesscs, the same were found to be containing five parcels, which on being opened were found to be containing ICs, Capacitor, Motorola Talk about T5720, Seiko battery cells, Dig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods Carrier, Chennai and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each im posed on Sh. Umesh Kumar, Prop. of Nikhil Electronics, Lajpat Nagar Market, Delhi, and Sh. Kanhaya Lal, Lajpat Nagar Market, Delhi and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each was imposed on the other three consignees. M/s. National Star Goods Carrier, Delhi/Chennai, Sh. Prern Chand and Sh. Uday Pal Singh filed appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) against the Addl. Commissioner's order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dt. 31-7-08 set aside the Addl. Commissioner's order with regard to penalty on these noticees. It is against this order that the present appeals have been filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Sh S.K. Bhaskar, learned DR, assailing the impugned ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ees, that they had no system of verification of the address of the consignors or verifying the contents; that in this case, there is no evidence that the respondent company or its employee had knowledge about the smuggled nature of the goods but still accepted the same for carriage; and that in view of this, imposition of penalty on them was not called for and same was rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). He also pleaded that the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CC (Prey.) W.B. Kolkata v. Suresh Kumar Nyollywalla (supra) cited by the learned DR is not applicable to the facts of the case as in that case there was a single transporter who had accepted the consignment of smuggled goods from a person and su....