Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Prev.), West ... vs Sri Sunil Ghosh on 18 August, 2009
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH:KOLKATA
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.326/09
[ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.PREV/CUS-41.42 & 43/09 DATED 17.04.2009 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KOLKATA]
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF
SHRI S.S.KANG, HONBLE VICE-PRESIDENT
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
=============================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), WEST BENGAL, KOLKATA APPELLANT COMMISSIONER VERSUS SRI SUNIL GHOSH RESPONDENT APPEARANCE:
SHRI R.K.CHAKRABORTY, J.D.R. FOR THE APPELLANT COMMISSIONER; SRI K.P.DEY, ADVOCATE OR THE RESPONDENT. CORAM:
SHRI S.S.KANG, VICE PRESIDENT DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: 18.08.09 ORDER NO Per SHRI S.S.KANG Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the impugned Order whereby the imposition of penalty of Rs.20,000.00 was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the present Respondent was concerned with the impugned goods which were seized from the truck. The present Respondent is the owner of the truck and the truck was confiscated. Confiscation of the truck is not challenged. The penalty on the present Respondent is set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), as there is no evidence on record to link the Respondent with the confiscated goods.
3. Contention of the Revenue is that the present Respondent was involved in similar cases previously and he is the kingpin of smuggling of betel nuts and other contraband goods in the Indo-Nepal as well as Indo-Bangladesh Border Area.
4. I find that in the present case, the driver of the truck escaped at the time of seizure and Revenue failed to interrogate the driver and he never appeared before the Investigating Authority.
5. Main contention of the Revenue that the Respondent was involved in such activity previously. I find that the same cannot hold him liable in the present case in the absence of any evidence. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned Order. The Appeal is dismissed.
Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
Sd/-
(S.S.KANG) VICE-PRESIDENT DUTTA/ 2 CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.326/09