2004 (3) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S. Bhatnagar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The appeal was filed on 6-6-2003 against the Commissioner's order dated 27-10-97. In the present application for condonation of delay (if any) of the appeal, the appellant submits that he had come to know about the Commissioner's order from the officers of Customs who met him for recovery of penalty amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on the strength....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of service of the adjudication order. In view of this position, I have to accept the statement made by the applicant in para 4 of the present application which is to the effect that the impugned order was received by the applicant only on 10-3-2002. There is no delay in filing of the appeal and the present application is rejected. 4. I take up the stay application which prays for waiver o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....showing his involvement along with them. So far as the statements dated 25-1-1996 and 26-1-1996 made by Pipal Singh appellant is concerned, we are of the view that those statements are not free from doubt, as he was in the custody of Customs officials and the possibility of duress or coercion at the hands of the Customs officials cannot be ruled out. Beyond this, the prosecution has no evidence wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... same statements were relied upon by the Commissioner to find applicant to be liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The DR submits that the findings noted by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction under the N.D.P.S. Act cannot be any basis for examining the legality or otherwise of the penalty imposed on the party by the Commissioner of Customs under the Customs Act. 5.....