TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Nirmalendu Paul alias Ninku Paul was recorded on 14.06.2016 in response to summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. In his statement, accused Sri Nirmalendu Paul alias Ninku Paul stated, inter alia, that- (i) He is the son of Sri Nishikanta Paul of village- Baghbari, P.O. Kaliganj Bazar, PS & Dist. Karimganj (Assam)-788720. (ii) He is about 43 years old; class IX passed. Besides Bengali, he understands a bit of English as well. (iii) He is a hawker by profession and earns around Rs. 6000/-to 7000/- per month. He resides at a rented house at Ghatline, Railway siding, Karimganj-788711 with his family. (iv) The seized Gold biscuits were handed over to him by an unknown person at Karimganj Railway Station on 13.06.2016. The person came from Dharmanagar by train, contracted him on mobile phone, handed over the goods to him and disappeared. The person is aged about 30 years. But he cannot recollect the mobile number of that unknown person as he had by then already deleted the said number from his call list. (v) The recovered gold biscuits belonged to one Sri Debaraj Paul of Dharmanagar, Debaraj Paul is about 50 years old a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manj. (ii) Being a hawker, he travelled to Dharmanagar in Tripura. (iii) He was not an Income Tax assessee and had never filed any IT Returns. (iv) He had a bank account with P.N.B. Karimganj having balance of around Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only). His wife did not have any bank account. (v) He did not have any movable or immovable property registered in his name or in the name of any of his family members (except the property at the address at Bagbari, Kaliganj Bazar, Karimganj which was subsequently stated by him; as his ancestral property). He also did not have any jewellery worth mentioning. (vi) Debraj Paul last called him on 13.06.2016 at about 7.30-8 PM from Mobile No. 9862937632. (vii) This was the first time he had involved himself in such activities. (viii) He was a very poor man and was compelled by circumstances to be involved in such unlawful activities." ......... 5. The temporary residential address of the accused Shri Nirmalendu Paul alias Ninku Paul at Ghatline Railway Siding, Karimganj as well as his permanent residential address at village Bagbari, P.O. Kaliganj Bazar, Karimganj were se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Remarks 1 9678353415 Mr. Rony Laskar S/o (Lt.) Rup Laskar, P.S:-karimganj, Suprakandi P.O.:- Girishganj Bazar Assam-788722. Mobile SIM recovered from accused Sri Nirmalendu Paul alias Ninku Paul 2 7086655493 Mr. Rina Kuri, S/o Rojot Kuri, H. No. 413, Suprakandi, Girishganj Bazar, Assam-788722. -Do- 3 9862937632 Mr. Debasish Paul, North Nayapara, Dharamnagar, Tripura North, Near Kadamtala Auto Stand, Dharamnagar Accused Sri Nirmalendu Paul alias Ninku Paul claimed the user of the Mobile SIM is Sri Debraj Paul. 8. Verification of the above said addresses of the registered customers Mr. Rony Laskar and Mr. Rina Kuri was carried out on 30.09.2016 with the jurisdictional Suprakandi Goan Panchayat, Distt. Darimganj (Assam). The President of Suprakandi Goan Panchayat, Distt. Karimganj (Assam) informed that as per records the persons are not inhabitants of Suprakandi G.P. and that P.I.N Code number of Suprakandi G.P is 788711. The last holding No. is also 311 as per 2016-17 records. A certificate to the above effect was endorsed by the President of the Suprakandi Gaon Panchayat. 9. As per follow-up investigation report dated 30.06.2016 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. iv) He does not know the user of Mobile No. 8253835183. He failed to recollect the details of the user of the said mobile phone. 12. SDR in respect of Mobile No. 8258835183 provided by the Service Provider revealed that the mobile number is registered in the name of one Sujit Paul of Rowa, Dharmanagar, Tripura, PIN - 799260. 13. Sri Debasish Paul, S/o Sri Debraj Paul was summoned to DRI Office, Silchar on 05.09.2016 and his statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1862 where he, inter alia, stated that :- (i) He did not know anyone by the name Nirmalendu Paul or NinkuPaul. Also, he did not know anyone by the name Sujit Paul as well. (ii) His Mobile No. was 8416043096. (iii) The Mobile No. 9862937632 though registered in his name was actually being used by his father Sri Debraj Paul for the last 2/3 years. The SIM was probably taken in 2008-09. (iv) Apart from the grocery shop, his father used to do Import- Export business through Raghna Bazar LCS. (v) He did not know anything about this case. 14. Sri Debraj Paul, S/o (L) Hari Narayan Paul was again summoned to DRI Office, Silcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3,00,000 (Rupees Three lakhs only) on Sri Debraj Chandra Paul alias Debraj Paul, S/o (L) Hari Naryaran Paul, Nayapara, Pragati Road, P.O. & P.S.. Dharamnagar, Dist. North Tripura, Tripura - 799250 under Section 112 (b) (i) of the Customs Act 1962. (v) Imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand only) on Sri Nirmalendu Paul alias Ninku Paul, S/o Sri Nishikanta Paul, Vill Bagbari, P.O. Kaliganj Bazar, P.S. & Dist. Karimganj (Assam), PIN - 788720 under Section 112 (b) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 17. Being aggrieved with the order of the Adjudicating Authority the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in Appeal No. 19/CUS(A)/GHY/17 dated 23.11.2017 upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected both the appeals. The present appeals have been filed by the Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 19/CUS(A)/GHY/17 dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Guwahati. 18. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 19. It has been observed that there was no controversy regarding recovery of gold and both the Appellants have not claimed ownership of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pied by Shri Nirmalendu Paul. His advocate also sought for cross examination of the independent witnesses present of the time of the seizure and that his statements were taken under threat and duress. 23. In this regard, I fully agree with the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 36 (ii) & 37 which is as follows:- "(ii) The contention of appellant No. 1 that the voluntary statement dated 14.06.2016 was .recorded under threat and as dictated by the DRI officers, I find that the threat factor as pointed out by the appellant in his appeal petition does not have support of any evidence. I find that the appellant had ample scope of retracting from the statement dated 14.06.2016 in his subsequent voluntary statements or by any other means e. g. at the time when he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate after his arrest or at any time before issuance of the SCN. I, therefore find no substance in the allegation of threat by the DRI officers in recording the statement dated 14.06.2016 which appears to be false, fabricated and without any basis. (iii) Regarding the plea of the appellant that the adjudicating authority did not allow cross exami....