Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.66 seconds)
Shri Anil Gadodia vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mundra on 12 February, 2016 cites

Shafeek P.K vs Cc, Cochin on 8 September, 2015

21. The Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of call data and details were brought on record by the D.R.I. officers. Further, the statement of co-accused Shri Mayur Ranjan implicated the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant was having permit or licence for trading of Red Sanders and the huge stock was found unaccounted in godown. The learned Advocate submits that as revealed from the Panchnama that stock register was lying in their office, which was not examined by the officers. In any event, the unaccounted stock would not construe that the Appellant exported the Red Sanders, and if any irregularity in the account would adjudicated by the Licencing authority and not the Customs authority. The evidence of call data has no force as there is material available in record of conversation of the Appellants for smuggling of goods. The Tribunal in the case of Shafeek P.K. (supra) observed that the Adjudicating authority relying on call data records showing telephone talk of the Appellant in Dubai with co-accused in India for smuggling of Red Sander would not be enough to conclude that the Appellant is involved in smuggling as the subject matter of conversation was not coming out from record.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next