TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (7) TMI 402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Highway. Shri Phoolchand was the Driver and with him Shri Ramjeet was sitting in the Truck. On search of the Truck, 10 Bags of Chinese Silk Yam were recovered from the hood of the truck. Another Truck No. UHX 307 was parked on the otherside of the Bridge. On search of the hood of the truck, 9 bags of Chinese Silk Yarn were recovered. Shri Phoolchand, Driver in his statement dated 29-5-1996 stated that Shri Jiut Ram, Munim of Shri Anil Kumar Rai had told him that if he transported the Chinese Silk Yarn, on return after delivery of the boulders, he will be paid some money; that he had discussed this aspect with Shri Anil Kumar Rai. Shri Phoolchand, Driver in his statement also confessed that he knew that he was carrying the contraband silk ya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the 2 Drivers. He submitted that three was no other evidence against Shri Anil Kumar Rai and thus, the imposition of penalty on Shri Anil Kumar Rai was not warranted. 4. The ld. Counsel submitted that at the material time, the person in- charge of the Vehicle was Shri Phoolchand and Shri Irphan. He submits that Shri Phoolchand has given a confessional statement and that he was not contesting the confiscation of the truck, but what he is contesting is the redemption fine. He submits that the trucks were registered in the year 1986 whereas they were intercepted in 1996. He submits that the trucks were being used for carrying boulders and thus, the condition of the trucks could not be such as to be of the market value of Rs. 4.00 L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fine fixed exceeds this norm (market value). He submits that in this case, the redemption fine was not high. 7. A point was also raised on the independent corroboration of the statement of co-accused. The ld. Counsel for the Appellant cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Debu Saha v. C.C. [1992 (59) E.L.T. 442] wherein the Tribunal had held that confession cannot be accepted unless it is independently corroborated. As against this, the ld. SDR submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani v. U.O.I. [1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 S.C.] held that the statement of co-accused is to be considered in its entirety and can be accepted. 8. Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful considera....