2016 (4) TMI 831

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11 Shri Aloke Gupta @ Bunty Agarwal (Staff of Appellant No.1) Rs.10,000/- of Penalty. 3. C-58/2011 Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal (Director of Appellant No.1) Rs.1,00,000/- of Penalty. 4. C-59/2011 Ratan Kumar Agarwal Prop. Of M/s.R.K.Enterprises, Kanpur Rs.50,000/- of Penalty. 5. C-60/2011 Shri Javed Alam P.O.Kuwari, Araria Rs.50,000/- of Penalty. 6. C-61/2011 Shri Mahadev Bach Director of Appellant No.1 Rs.10,000/- of Penalty. 7. C-62/2011 Shri Dhrub Deb Dubey Prop. Of M/s.Rajasthan Assam Roadlines Rs.25,000/- of Penalty. 8. C-63/2011 Shri Maqsood Alam P.O.Kuwari Araria Rs.25,000/- of Penalty.   2. Shri Arijit Chakraborty (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that 14.7 MT of Betel Nuts of third country origin(valued at Rs. 14.70 Lakh) were seized on 16.05.2008 by the Officers of DRI at a place named Rampur on Araria-Purnea National Highway from a truck bearing Registration No.RJ-14-2G-4000 on the basis of specific information. That the truck, valued at Rs. 3,75,000/-, in which the Betel Nuts were loaded, was also seized. On preliminary enquiry the driver and khalasi of the truck s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for giving statements does not mean that bills provided by Appellant No.1 are bogus. 2.1 Learned Advocate further argued that first appellate authority under Order-in-Appeal dated 25.10.2010 has rejected the appeals of his clients on the following accounts only: (i) That markings on the bags COCOA BEANS (Made in Malaysia) confirm that Betel Nuts were of foreign origin. (ii) That statement of Driver Shri Jagroop Singh and the Khalasi Shri Anil Sharma clearly implicate that goods were loaded at a place different from Kolkata and that they had never gone to Kolkata. (iii) That Truck No.RJ-14-2G-4000 never crossed Sales Tax Check Post, Dalkola during the period 01.05.2008 to 16.05.2008 as confirmed by Check Post authorities. (iv) That both the Appellants M/s.Bahubali Attraction Pvt.Ltd. and M/s.R.K.Enterprises disowned Betel Nuts of truck No.RJ-14-2G-4000. (v) That no payment to M/s.NCCF has been made by Appellant M/s.Bahubali Attraction Pvt.Ltd. through Drafts/Cheques. 2.2 With respect to findings of first appellate authority on 2.1 (i) learned Advocate had no objection because according to the appellant No.1 the confiscated Betel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etel Nuts across the border and have given the statements to protect their own skins. Learned Advocate relied upon the following case laws.:- (i) CC(Prev.), W.B. Calcutta v. Dungarmal Mohata [2006 (200) ELT 522(Cal.)] (ii) Echjay Industries Ltd. v. UOI [2006 (200) ELT 528 (Guj.)]  (iii) CC(Prev.), W.B.Calcutta v. Raj Kumar Jaiswal [2006 (204) ELT 561(Cal.)] (iv) Royal Industries Ltd. v. UOI [2006 (204) 564 (P & H)  (v) CC (Prev.) v. Mahendra Singh Purohit [2008 (225) ELT 426(Bom.)]  (vi) CCE & C, Nashik v. Krishna Filaments Ltd. [2008 (225) ELT 427(Bom.)]  (vii) CC (Prev.), Mumbai v. Aakash Enterprises [2006 (205)ELT 23(Bom.)]  (viii) CCE v. Gupta Steel [2006 (205) ELT 24 (Guj.)]  (ix) CC(Prev.), Mumbai v. Shri Ganesh Enterprises [2006 (199) ELT 208 (Bom.)] (x) Topland Enginees Pvt.Ltd. v. UOI [2006 (199) ELT 209(Guj.)]  (xi) Lakhi Nath Rai v. CC, Patna [2003 (159) ELT 662 (Tri.-Kolkata)]  (xii) Laxmi Narayan Sharma v. CC, Patna [2002 (142) ELT 74 (Tri.-Kol)]  (xiii) Raj Kumar Keshari v. CC(Prev.), Calcutta [2001 (136) ELT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents were pertaining to Betel Nuts loaded on a different truck bearing registration No.RJ-2G-4000 and not truck No.RJ-14-2G-4000 as stated by Appellant No.1 and Shri Ratan Kumar Agarwal, Prop. of M/s.R.K.Enterprises, Kanpur and that none of the appellants have claimed the ownership of the goods seized from truck No.RG-14-2G-4000. It is observed from the case records that vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ-14-2G-4000 has been written as follows, at various places in the Records of this case and was found to be registered in the name of Driver/Owner Shri Jagroop Singh in Rajasthan.:- Sl. No. Written as Page No. of Appeal Memo Written by 1 RJ-142-G-4000 120 Adjudicating authority in Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2010. 2. RJ-14/2G-4000 125 Advocate of Appellant No.1. 3. -do- 126 Advocate of M/s.R.K.Enterprises, Kanpur. 4. RJ-142G-4000 129 Advocate of Driver/owner and Khalasi 5. RJ-142J-4000 130 -do- 6. RJ-14-2G 138 Para 4.1 of Order-in-Original dated 30.04.10. 7. RJ-2G-4000 139 Discussions & findings of Adjudication authority (30.04.2010) 8. RJ-14-26 173 Discussions & findings of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aken that digits "14" not getting mentioned in the transport documents was a clerical omission. The argument taken by Appellant No.1 has some weight because truck registration number must have been communicated through phone/mobiles where some digits can get omitted. Such an omission is plausible in view of the omissions indicated in para 4 above, where inspite of truck No.RJ-14-2G-4000 being as record, a different number is written by various persons including the Adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. The first two alphabets of a vehicle registration number indicate the state of registration. The next two digits represent the Area/District of the vehicle registration authority. Therefore Bench is of the considered opinion that vehicle No.RG-2G-4000 is not the complete registration number of a vehicle and could be same as RG-14-2G-4000. 4.2 It is also the case of appellant No.1 that vehicles not having permit to enter West Bengal actually enter Kolkata also by adopting unfair practices. Presuming the argument of the Appellant to be true, the Driver of such a vehicle, having entered in the state of West Bengal (Kolkata) and on way back is caught by an investig....