1999 (8) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, no penalty has been imposed. 2. Heard Shri Satish Sundar, Ld. Advocate for both appellants. He submits that briefly, on 2-12-1988, Customs officers intercepted the two appellants in the train between Madras and Mangalore and recovered Indian currencies totalling Rs. 3,00,000/-. Initial statements recorded was to the effect that the money was handed over by a person from Salem for delivery to an unknown person at Kanhangad Railway Station. Seven days later, appellant Shri Shafi Ahmed retracted and submitted that appellant Shri A. Sadiq Basha gave the money to him for purchase of a second-hand lorry. Appellant Basha also rectracted on the same day and these retractions were to the effect that the money was for use of purchase of a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....regard to the origin and source of currency given by the appellants is found to be false, that would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the currency represented the sales proceeds under Section 121. He further cites the decision in the case of S. Kotteswaran v. CC as in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 435 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that burden on the department to prove that the money represented sales proceeds and mere non accountal as to receipt of money is not sufficient to taint it. He also cites the decision in the case of CC v. Om Prakash as in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 966 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that the department cannot rely only on retracted statements of the accused without any corroboration by independent evidence for confiscation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... point, Ld. Advocate rises to rebut and cites the decision of the same bench in the case of MALAR v. CCE as in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 444 (Tribunal). wherein it was held that mere possession of currency without satisfactory explanation may engender only suspicion but is not sufficient enough to confiscate the same under Section 121. He submits that at best, the retracted statements would be held to cause some suspicion but it was very distant from proof. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and records of the case. We find that the decision cited by Ld. D.R. is an isolated case in view of the plethora of decisions cited by Ld. Advocate including the one in the case of MALAR supra which has been passed by the same bench wh....