TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hwanathan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Orde per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - All these 7 appeals arise from a common Order-in-Original No. 8/2003, dated 17-4-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. The appellants have been imposed with a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in terms of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The main appeal is against Shri Dinesh Chhajjer & Shri Pankaj Jain who hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ign branded or not. A Show Cause Notice was issued on those persons who have purchased from Dinesh Chhajjer alleging that they are dealing with smuggled goods and they are liable for penalty. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has clearly held that the said goods, which were sold to the appellants, have not been seized. In the circumstance, the learned Counsel submits that when the department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l submitted that the goods said to have been dealt with by the appellants were all non-notified goods and the Revenue has not proved the smuggled nature of the same and, therefore, the Calcutta Bench judgment rendered in identical facts and circumstances in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CC, Calcutta - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 921 would apply to the facts of the case including that of Hindustan Beari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench order in Lajwanti D. Datwani & Ors. v. CC (Prev.), Mumbai - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 156 (T) = 2002 (53) RLT 864 (CEGAT-Mum.).  3.The learned SDR submitted that in so far as the case against the appellant is concerned, no goods were seized. The case proceeded on the basis of the diary recovered from Dinesh Chhajjer, which showed the sale of goods to these persons. There was a reasonable belie....