TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce relied on by the Department. 2.1 Brief facts are:- Officers of DRI, Lucknow intercepted a mini truck near Kanpur after a hot chase in the early hours of 13-4-1997. 50 bags of Gambier, alleged to be foreign origin and weighing 1750 kgs. valued at Rs. 3.5 lakhs were recovered from the said mini truck. The driver of the vehicle, Shri Mohd. Alam in his statement admitted that the said Gambier was carried over from another vehicle and the goods were smuggled and brought from Nepal by another truck and the 50 bags were off loaded at Nayaganj, Kanpur and later on were loaded on his mini truck for carrying them to Rania near Kanpur. He also stated that the goods belonged to one Shri Salam of Kanpur; that he worked for Bharat Jaiswal, the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Shri Panchatcharam has contended that one of the grounds on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeals filed by the various noticees is that the driver in his statement had stated that after transferring the goods from another truck to his mini truck, he had started the journey for destination namely, M/s. Kanchan Udyog at 01.00 hrs. on 13-4-1997. In the Panchnama the time of interception has been given as 02.00 hrs. However, the fortnightly diary maintained by the Forest Range Office, produced by the noticee had shown that the said mini truck loaded with Gambier had checked at Bhauti Barrier at 21.00 hrs. on 12-4-1997 which showed that the said truck had left its point of origin before 21.00 hrs. on 12-4-1997. The Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and not to the seized goods. This would be all the more evident since no register regarding the said transactions have been maintained by M/s. V.G. Sales, the purported purchaser of the goods from M/s. Biharilal. The Department has questioned findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) about the lack of authenticity of the statement given by the driver, Shri Mohd. Alam. 4. Opposing the submissions of the JDR, ld. Counsel for the Respondents, Shri K.K. Anand, draws attention to the discussions and findings in paras 6 to 12 of the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has dealt with each of the points mentioned in the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Commissioner. As regards the statement given by the driver, Shri Mohd. Alam to the effec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r by M/s. V.G. Sales for delivery to M/s. Kanchan Udyog. The transactions had been corroborated by both M/s. V.G. Sales and M/s. Kanchan Udyog. Further, there was also no warrant for imposing penalty on the owner of the mini truck, M/s. Bharat Jaiswal. In these circumstances, the Advocate for the Respondents prayed for upholding of the impugned older and the dismissal of the Revenue Appeals. 5. I have considered the submissions and have perused the records. I find that as regards the alleged contravention of Notification No. 996 dated 22-1-1996, M/s. V.G. Sales, one of the appellants before me, had produced evidence by way of challan No. 3377, dated 12-4-1997 issued to M/s. Kanchan Udyog, the other appellant. M/s. V.G. Sales had furth....