TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (8) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rkar, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)]. - These two appeals are filed against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, Calcutta in Order No. 23/Cus/WB/88 dated 7-3-1988. In terms of that order he confiscated the synthetic fabrics. He also confiscated the vehicle in question and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order was passed. 2. The learned Counsel, Shri S.K. Sen appeared for the appellant, Shri Sambhu Saha. He stated that the only evidence against Shri Saha is the confessional statement of Shri Pradip Dey who is a co-accused. The learned J.D.R., Shri B.B. Sarkar took us through the impugned order and justified the conclusion. 3. It is now seen that the only evidence against the appellant,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. But there is a document produced which goes to show that the ownership of the vehicle and its possession were taken by Shri Jiban Kundu, the appellant. He claimed the vehicle in question and the same was ordered to be released provisionally to Shri Jiban Kundu on executing a Bond. Therefore, his ownership was accepted. 5. The learned Counsel, Shri K. Chatterjee for the appellant, Shri Jiban Ku....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gation into the facts in view of the fact that the cover produced by the appellant, Shri Kundu clearly goes to show that the show cause notice was received by him six months after seizure of the vehicle under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. If show cause notice was to be issued to the appellant, Shri Kundu within six months and if the same was not issued within six months, the vehicle should....