Judgements

Pareshkumar Hirji Bhadra vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 29 October, 2004

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Pareshkumar Hirji Bhadra vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 29 October, 2004
Bench: A M Moheb


ORDER

Moheb Ali M., Member (T)

1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Briefly the facts are that the Central Excise Officers intercepted a Tempo bearing Registration No. Mh-04-S-3050 loaded that 152 bags of LLDPE granules of Indonesian origin on 5.1.99. Investigation revealed that consignee’s address mentioned in the invoice tendered by the driver of the vehicle was bogus and the quantity shown in the invoice was different than that of the one physically found. The driver of the vehicle was interrogated. In his statement be confessed that as per the direction of the owner of the Tempo he had gone to M/s. Prestige Transport, Bhiwandi on 5.1.99 and handed over One Rupee Currency Note given to him by the owner of the person sitting in the above said transport company, who thereupon given him delivery of 152 bags of the said granules. Shri P.H. Bhadra the present appellant is the owner of the vehicle above said. He admitted that as per the instructions received from one Shri Sanjay Chheda he asked his driver to go with the vehicle to the transport company for taking delivery of plastic granules and that his driver had accordingly followed his instructions. After following the due procedure the lower authority confiscated the vehicle under the provisions of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it was found to be carrying smuggled goods with the knowledge of the driver and the owner of the vehicle. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order.

3. None appeared for the appellant.

4. Perused the records and heard the Ld. DR. I observe that the vehicle in question was carrying smuggled goods with the knowledge of the driver and owner of the vehicle. It is liable to confiscation Under Section 115 of the Customs Act. I see no infirmity in the order of the lower authority. While upholding the confiscation I reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/-. I uphold the penalty of Rs. 15,000/-imposed by the lower authority.

5. The appeal is thus partly allowed.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)