RAMESH KUMAR BANSAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common issue in these appeals is in respect of penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) RELEVANT facts for consideration are the appellants herein are traders in MS Scrap. Shri Ramesh Kumar Bansal, appellant No. 1 placed a verbal order on Shri Bharat Kumar Dhariwal, appellant No. 2 for supply of Misprint sheets which are generated as scrap in industry. The vehicle carrying the said scrap was checked by the Trade Tax Authorities and they found contraband goods in the vehicle. Trade Tax Authorities after investigation at their end, handed over the vehicle and the list of goods to the DRI, who after taking the possession of the vehicle carrying the misprint goods and contraband goods, searched the vehicle in the presence of independent witness and prepared a Panchnama. Statements of the appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 were recorded. A show cause notice was issued to both the appellants for confiscation of the smuggled goods as well as the misprint sheets, which as per allegation were used for concealing the smuggled goods. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods in the vehicle and imposed penalty on both the appellants. The adjudicating authority absolutely confiscated the miscellaneous foreign goods and ordered the confiscation of the provisionally released goods and truck. Since the misprint sheets were released provisionally on cash security, the said amount was appropriated as redemption fine. The appellants are in appeal against the imposition of the penalty and appellant No. 2 is also seeking the release of the confiscated misprint sheets.

(3.) THE ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the imposition of the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is not correct, as it is on record that appellant No. 1 had ordered for misprint sheets and appellant No. 2 had dispatched the same. How and when the contraband goods got into the vehicle is not explained by the authorities and that the driver of the vehicle is not traceable. Further he submits that both appellants produced documents to show that there was a commercial transactions between them and they were not concerned with the smuggled goods.