TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent to Shekhar Yadav and M/s. S.Y. International. It is mentioned in the notice that specific information was received by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit that M/s. S.Y. International, WZ-276-G, Inderpuri, New Delhi have indulged in fraudulent availment of drawback. It is also mentioned in the show cause notice that enquiries were made with ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi and it was found that in 4 shipping bills son of the petitioner claimed drawback of Rs. 13.25 lakhs. 3. It is mentioned in the notice that on examination, 200 cartons were found to contain old and used garments, from which labels were found removed in most of the cases. Some garments were stained and torn. Majority of the garments wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which is the residential address of Shekhar Yadav. Nothing incriminating was found. During the course of investigations, it was also gathered that Shekhar Yadav was only a front man and another person by the name of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma was the main person behind the export fraud of M/s. S.Y. International. Search was also conducted at the residential premises of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma on 22-6-2001. Some incriminating documents/things were recovered and seized under the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. The statement of Shekhar Yadav was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 9-7-2001 and 9-8-2001 wherein he stated that Sanjeev Kumar Sharma was the actual owner of M/s. S.Y. International and Sanjeev Kumar Sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 8. It is also mentioned in the notice that on paper M/s. S.Y. International is owned by Shekhar Yadav but actual owner is Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and he attempted to export rags at a highly inflated price under drawback scheme, just to avail huge drawback fraudulently. It is further mentioned that Sanjeev Kumar Sharma has already availed drawback of Rs. 2,36,746/- on exports of cheap quality rags from Air Cargo, New Delhi. 9. In the petition and C.M. No. 7984/01 it is mentioned that the amount of Rs. 16.25 lakhs belong to the petitioner and not to Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and this amount be refunded to her. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by Shri Sanjay Mangal, Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, it is mentioned that hu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffidavit that Sanjeev Kumar Sharma had claimed part ownership of the said money. The amount of Rs. 16.25 lakhs was recovered from the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and not from the possession of the petitioner. It is mentioned that for the first time on 7-8-2001 after about 1½ months a letter was sent by the Advocate of the petitioner in which she claimed ownership of the said amount. 13. It is submitted that even after granting a number of opportunities, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce income tax and wealth tax returns of the petitioner justifying that she could possess this kind of huge amount. It is further submitted that the money was recovered from the second floor premises of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k. The petitioner is admittedly an illiterate and old woman. She cannot even sign on papers and has only affixed thumb impression on various documents. 16. Prima facie, we are of the view that neither the amount recovered during the search belonged to the petitioner nor was recovered from her possession. Even in the present proceedings, a number of adjournments were availed by learned Counsel for the petitioner in order to produce the Income Tax Returns of the petitioner in support of the contention that she was possessed of this large sum of money. Eventually, learned Counsel expressed his failure to obtain instructions and proceeded to argue the petition instead. We cannot but draw an adverse inference against her. 17. The learned Couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. Reliance has also been placed on a Single Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Chunilal Damani v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, West Bengal [2000 (126) E.L.T. 357 (Cal.)]. In this case it is observed that the party whose goods are seized must be heard before an order under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 extending the time for notice is issued. 21. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law which has been laid down in the aforesaid cases. In all these cases it is clearly mentioned that notice has to be given to the person from whom goods have been seized. In the instant case the amount of Rs. 16.25 lakhs has been recovered from the premises of Sanjeev Sharma, and not from the possession of the petitioner,....