Case Details: Hira Singh Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi (2025) 33 Centax 2 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
Ms. Binu Tamta, Member (J)
-
Shri Gaurav Prakash, Adv., for the Appellant.
-
Shri Vishwa Jeet Saharan, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant was involved in proceedings arising from the recovery of foreign origin cigarettes from his residence and a mini truck located near the godown of a transport company owned by him. The jurisdictional Customs officers recorded a panchnama detailing (a) the time and place of calling panch witnesses, (b) the purpose of proceedings, (c) particulars of officers present, (d) the nature and registration number of the truck, (e) identities of the truck driver, helper, unloading supervisors, and supplier’s agent, (f) details of government vehicle and tempo used to carry cigarettes for examination, and (g) an inventory of metal planters and cigarettes recovered from the truck and godown. The e-way bill accompanying the goods described them as metal planters, and the appellant could not produce documents evidencing licit import or transport of the cigarettes. A discrete market survey was conducted by the Department. The panchnama was read over in vernacular, signed by all present, and accepted and signed by the appellant. The appellant contended that the seizure memo mentioned annexure D, which was neither annexed nor supplied, while the Department stated it was a typographical error and that annexure D was neither part of records nor relied upon. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
High Court Held
The CESTAT held that the panchnama recorded material information and set out the entire procedure of search and seizure leading to the recovery of smuggled cigarettes, for which the appellant could not produce legal documents. It was found that the appellant’s challenge to the panchnama did not affect its reliability, particularly in view of his acceptance and signing of the same. The Tribunal accepted the Department’s explanation that the mention of annexure D in the seizure memo was a typographical error, as annexure D was neither apparent from records nor relied upon at any stage, and no prejudice was caused to the appellant. It was further observed that issues of illegal search and seizure under Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 were required to be examined on merits and not rejected on such grounds.
List Of Case Cited
-
Collector v. D. Bhoormull — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1546 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 19]
-
Commissioner v. Anand Kumar Alias Babu — 2015 (325) E.L.T. 609 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Paras 11, 12]
-
Commissioner v. Mahalaxmi Dyeing Mills — 2016 (332) E.L.T. 270 (Guj.) — Distinguished [Paras 11, 12]
-
Commissioner v. Mukesh Industries Ltd. — 2009 (235) E.L.T. 527 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Paras 11, 12]
-
Commissioner v. Systems and Components Pvt. Ltd. — 2004 (165) E.L.T. 136 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 15]
-
K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector — 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 19]
-
Kanungo & Co. v. Collector — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 16]
-
Kuber Tobacco Products Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (290) E.L.T. 545 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Paras 11, 12]
-
Mohammed Muzzamil v. C.B.I. & C. — 2021 (376) E.L.T. 46 (Telangana) — Relied on [Para 18]
-
Naresh J.Sukhawani v. Union of India — 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 19]
-
Radha Kishan v. State of UP — 1963 (Supp) 1 SCR 408 — Followed [Para 12]
-
State of Haryana v. Raj Mal — 2011 (14) SCC 326 — Followed [Para 12]
-
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh — 1994 (70) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 12]
-
Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 17]
-
Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement — 2013 (289) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 17]
