TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (10) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with other materials and the trucks. Apart from that penalties as detailed below have been imposed upon the various persons. (a) Dasmesh Road Servlce - Rs. 10 lakhs. (b) Shri Inderpreet Singh - Rs. 5 lakhs (Sole Prop. of Dasmesh Road Service). (c) Jagpal Singh Sahauli - Rs. 5 lakhs. (d) Davinder Deep Singh - Rs. 1 lakh. (e) Jatashankar Singh - Rs. 10,000/- (f) R.N. Sharma - Rs. 10,000/- (g) P.S. Saral - Rs. 10,000/-. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf of Dasmesh Road Service, its owner and father of the owner Shri Jaspal Singh Sahauli. He also appeared on behalf of Shri Davinder Deep Singh and Ranjit Singh. Dr. Chakraborty made it clear that nobody claimed the ownership of the ball bearings in question. On being querried as to whether the names of the persons who booked the consignment in the trucks belonging to the appellant have been disclosed by them Dr. Chakraborty submits that they have no connection with the seized ball bearings and they were referring to the legal character of the same only to show that the appellants, as transporters or as employees of the transporters were in no way concerned with transportation of the illegal ball bearings. Accordingly Dr. Chakraborty submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that there in no evidence either in the show cause notice or in the order from which it can be established that the appellant had done or had omitted to do any act, which act or omission could have rendered the subject goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the said Act. There is absolutely no material on record to establish that the appellant had acquired possession and was in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing or purchasing in any manner or dealing with any goods and knew or had reason to believe was liable to confiscation. Similar contentions were raised on behalf of Ranjit Singh and it was contended that penalty cannot be imposed on basis of hearsay evidence unsupported by d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....N. Sharma was only Manager of M/s. Dasmesh Road Service and his name has been referred to in the statement of the Dipankar Nath and Ranjit Singh and there is nothing in the said statements involving R.N. Sharma in the alleged pilferage of the ball bearings. Similarly statement of Jagrup Singh which is to the effect that R.N. Sharma visited him in the Presidency jail and obtained his signature on a blank sheet cannot in no way link the appellant with the seized ball bearings. As such he prays for setting aside the imposition of penalty upon him by referring to the various case laws. 10. Shri B. Saha, ld. Adv. appears on behalf of Shri Jatashankar Singh, who he submits is the owner of the godown at Howrah from where ball bearings of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to confiscation, is proved. As such benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants in that case and penalties were set aside. In the present case also, without deciding as to whether the ball bearings in question were legally imported into India or the same were deflected, being Nepal bound cargo we find that the Commissioner in his impugned order has not brought on record affirmative and positive evidence to show the involvement of the appellants in the transportation of the same with knowledge that the goods in question were liable to confiscation. Similarly we find force in the appellants' submission that a separate penalty on Inderpreet Singh being sole Prop. of M/s. Dasmesh Road Service was not warranted. Similarly Jagpal Singh Sahaul....