TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (5) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose from the common impugned order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The three aforesaid vehicles were intercepted on the Amritsar-Delhi road on 23-11-1992 on the basis of intelligence report that they were carrying goods of foreign origin. Search of the vehicles conducted in the presence of two independent Panchas and the occupants of the vehicles showed that several packages of colour P.C. paper, Laser Printer, Circular Saw Blades, Printing Plates, Vernier Calipers, Micrometers, Press buttons, Video Cassettes and Aluminium bottles containing certain chemicals valued in all at Rs. 44,68,580- were recovered from them. Further, search of Truck No. UGR 807 revealed that 96 pieces of drilling machines and 84 pieces of disc grinders of foreign origin valued at Rs. 3,12,000/- were concealed in a cavity near the driver's cabin. Certain pieces of negative film rolls, roller bearings, zip fasteners collectively valued at Rs. 29,51,200/- and of foreign origin were also recovered. Occupants of the vehicles, namely, S/Shri Tarsem Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Jograj, Sanjeev Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Kuku Singh could not produce any documents to show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. CH-01-3396 and Tanker No. NL-02-A0506. That the said two vehicles along with Truck No. UGR 807 left for Delhi via Bareilly and the three vehicles arrived at Libaspur Petrol Pump at Delhi about midnight and after half an hour or so the DRI officers took the vehicle to their Office at Lodhi Road and after search recovered the goods in the presence of Panchas. The driver of Truck No. UGR 807 Shri Jog Raj Singh in his statement dated 24-11-1992 said that Truck No. UGR 807 was owned by Shri Surinder Singh of Faridpur, Distt. Bareilly. That in the evening of 21-11-1992 Shri Surinder Singh had accompanied him with the said truck to the forest 4 kms away from Khatima; that some workers were already there and that the owner of the truck unscrewed the bolt of iron sheet behind the driver's cabin and loaded the goods in the cavity and thereafter the owner of the Truck fixed the iron sheet with nuts and bolts; that Surinder Singh, the owner had told him (Joginder Singh) that he had to take the truck to Delhi and follow Truck No. 3396 and for this job Surinder Singh would pay him Rs. 3000/- and that he (Jog Raj Singh) was to deliver the goods to the person to whom the driver of Truck No. 33....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and denied any concern with the seized goods. He denied any knowledge about the ownership or transportation of the said goods or any connection with Ramesh Kumar Wadhera and others. He further submitted that Truck No. CH-01-3396 belonged to him and Truck No. HR-03-7796 which was repainted with another number belonged to his brother. He stated that there was no case of smuggling made out against him. He would also be making a separate application for the release of the trucks belonging to him and his brother. One Maninder Singh (who was not a noticee) by letter dated 12-8-1993 requested for the release of Tanker No. NL-02-A-0506 seized by the DRI officers and claimed that he was the owner of the said vehicle. Though notice of personal hearings were issued to all the noticees with instructions about the date of personal hearing, none appeared for personal hearing. The Collector, therefore, proceeded to deal with the matter on the basis of the record and on the basis of the reply sent by Jaswinder Singh. 8. The adjudicating authority held that Shri Tarsem Singh, Driver of Truck No. 3396 had stated that the truck was brought to Delhi on instructions from Shri Jaswinder Singh, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to the appellants making them liable to penalty had been brought out. The requirements of Section 112 had, therefore, not been satisfied. He submitted that it was a settled principle that the onus is on the Department to show that any act of omission or commission attracting penalty was deliberate and there was mens rea and if two constructions are possible, the one in favour of the subject should be adopted. He, therefore, pleaded for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on appellants. 10. The ld. DR submitted that excepting appellant Jaswinder Singh, who had sent a written reply to the SCN, none of the other noticees, had replied to the notices nor responded to the summons issued to them. They did not also attend the personal hearing, the notices for which had been issued. He submitted that the statements given by the drivers were very detailed and were corroborated by the three cleaners accompanying the three vehicles. He also submitted that notices issued for personal hearing before the Collector had been returned undelivered. Having regard to the detailed evidence available from the statements and the Panchnama, the Department's case was fully proved a....