TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re 4. C/204/03 M/s. Bechan Mishra OIA No. 148/2003, dated 9-4-2003 -do- 5. C/211/03 M/s. Patel Angadia & Company OIA No. 151/2003, dated 9-4-2003 -do- 6. C/212/03 M/s. Patel Angadia & Co. OIA No. 228/2003, dated 29-5-2003 -do- 1 & C/238/992 & C/239/99 2.The DRI Officers visited the premises of the appellants. They found silk yarn suspected to be of foreign origin in the premises of the appellants. In the premises of M/s. Ganesham, they found 153.30 kgs of silk yarn in four closed bags and also cash amounting to Rs. 24.99 lakhs and cheques worth Rs. 8.19 lakhs. There was also a register containing details of sales of silk yarn made in the previous week. All the above goods, currency and documents were seized. The officers drew samples from quantities of silk yarn seized. Statements were recorded from Sri Pramodkumar, the GPA holder and Sri Sushilkumar, a relative of the proprietor of the appellant on 17-1-98. In the statements they accepted the trading of such yarn without proper documents. Sri Pramodkumar, in further statements provided details of sales made by him of such yarn in the past. On 6-2-98, Sri Pramodkumar retracted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants have discharged their onus that the goods are not smuggled and it is for the department to prove otherwise. V. The DRI officials conducted enquiries with the suppliers of the goods, M/s. Nataraj Enterprises, who confirmed the supply of 80 bales of silk yarn to the appellants in December 97, and provided documents. They stated that out of 80 bales, 50 bales were initially sent to Ahmedabad and later on the said party not paying the price, they deviated the said consignment to Bangalore. VI. Relying on the Test reports, the Commissioner has concluded that the goods seized and the goods covered by the documents are different. Hence, he has confiscated the goods, which has been seized and also demanded duty with regard to the 80 bales of yarn. Even according to the appellants the goods seized by the officers and the goods covered by the documents are different. This is so because, the quantities covered by the documents is 80 bales, which would approximately work out to 4800 kgs. Even according to the department, they have sold 4752 kgs which would leave a balance of 48 kgs. The quantity seized is 153 kgs, and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Samir Saha & Others v. CC - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 471 (T) = 2004 (93) ECC 200 * CC(Preventive), WB v. Sudir Saha - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 26 (Cal) = 2004 (63) RLT 811 (Cal.) * Rajesh Surana v. CC, Chennai - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 987 (T) = 2004-TIOL-820-CESTAT-MAD 5. The learned SDR took us through the adjudication order and urged that the adjudicating authority has clearly analysed the evidence available and has come to a conclusion that the goods seized are not covered by the Bills of Entry of M/s. Nataraj Enterprises. This is clear since the test reports of the goods indicate a different derniarage from the one supposed to have been the one imported by M/s. Nataraj Enterprises of Calcutta. 6. We have carefully gone through the records of the case. On the date of seizure of the goods, statements were given to the effect that the appellants used to receive mulberry silk of foreign origin on which Customs duty has not been paid. Even though the statement was retracted, the appellants themselves gave the details of the purchase of Mulberry silk from M/s. Nataraj Enterprises, Calcutta. The departmental ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment came to the conclusion that the lorry carrying the goods from M/s. HHEC to Prashray Plastic Industries has not passed through a particular check post. Therefore, the Revenue doubted that these goods were actually received from M/s. HHEC. Since, these documents were not accepted, the department came to the conclusion that the goods were smuggled. In view of this conclusion, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods. However, as the goods have been disposed of, the sale proceeds of Rs. 5,20,879/- realized was appropriated to the Government of India. The Indian currency representing the sales of the smuggled silk yarn was also confiscated absolutely. The packing cloth used for packing the goods were also confiscated. A penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was imposed on Sri Bechan Mishra under Section 112 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 75,000/- was imposed on M/s. Prashray Plastics and a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on M/s. Patel Angadia Company. The Commissioner (Appeals) in separate orders confirmed the findings of the original authority. 10Sri G. Shivadass, and Sri Manohar Jeerige advocates appeared for the appellants and Sri R. N. Vishwanath, SDR for the revenue. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made in the Commercial check post. In our view, this is a very weak ground for the revenue to establish the illicit nature of the impugned goods. The department should have made further investigations and established the exact origin of the impugned goods. Since they have not done that we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants. Moreover, the inculpatory statement of Sri Bechan Mishra had been retracted on the very next day. The markings on the impugned goods tally with those indicated in the import documents. Under these circumstances, the order in original confiscating the impugned goods and imposing penalties on the appellants is not sustainable. Moreover, Sri Bechan Mishra on whom the personal penalty is imposed is no longer alive. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief. C/211/035. 14.In this case, the appellant is M/s. Patel Angadia company. The facts of this case are the same as in Appeal Nos.C/203 & 204/03 dealt with in the order at Para 7. A penalty of Rs. 75,000/- has been imposed by the original authority under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The relevant findings are as follows: The lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad actually dealt with the goods. Production of false/bogus receipt although an offence under other laws, cannot attract 112(b) if the Customs Act, when there is no evidence that the appellant dealt with the smuggled goods. Hence, there is no ground for imposing penalty on them. In view of the above findings the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. C/212/03 6. 19.This is an appeal against OIA 22/03, dated 29-5-2003 filed by M/s. Patel Angadia Company. 20.Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The appellant is a transport company. The DRI officials visited the appellants unit and found 27 bundles of raw silk yarn of foreign origin from the premises. The MD Lalit Jain, informed the DRI that 10 bales belonged to M/s. Patodia Traders Calcutta. He also produced documents to show that these goods have been received from the above mentioned co in cal. On verification the transport documents were found to be bogus. The department came to the conclusion that the documents submitted by M/s. PA do not cover the goods seized from them. The original authority in his order in original dated 5-12-2000 has given the following finding. From"18. the challan No.1/8....