2024 (11) TMI 303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Y.M. Naseer Hussain, from whose possession foreign marked Gold Biscuits (cut to size), 4 gold rings and the above said vehicle were seized and all their statements were recorded under Panchanama dt.29.06.2017. On being asked by the police during the said proceedings, it was alleged that Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain expressed his inability to produce any valid/proper duty paid documents. Hence they have detained Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain, Mr. B. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. Pagidipalli Narasimhulu (present appellant) and Mr. D. Jathakanta Reddy at Patnam Police Station, Kadiri. 2. Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain, in his statement, stated that he was coming from Riyad on the occasion of his brother's marriage and that he had brought one mixi jar given to him by one p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation, the Original Adjudicating Authority ordered for confiscation of said gold and imposed penalties on Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain and the present appellant - Mr. P. Narasimhulu and dropped the proceedings against the remaining persons. 4. Aggrieved, the present appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the impugned order dt.31.05.2019, upheld the Order of the Adjudicating Authority thereby confirming the demand. Hence the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned AR for Revenue has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and prayed that the appeal may be rejected. 6. Heard learned AR for Revenue and perused the records. 7. The appellant Mr. P. Narasimhulu ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....seer Hussain. Co-accused Mr. Y.M. Naseer Hussain stated that appellant Mr. P. Narasimhulu came to pickup and was not aware that he was carrying the FMG in his luggage. 9. In the case of Obispo Reyes Vs State [2000 (125) ELT 393 (Cal)], the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held that "presumption cannot be drawn in the absence of proof of knowledge or conscious possession." In the case of Superintendent of Central Excise, Nipani Vs K. Arumugam Pillai [2000 (124) ELT 5 (Mys)], the Hon'ble High Court of Mysore at Bangalore categorically held that "mere fact that the respondent were present in the car, no inference can be drawn that they had knowledge or has reason to believe that gold was secreted in the crevices of foot board, when evidence sho....