Partly allowed

Shri Paramjeet Singh v. Patna( Appeal)

CESTAT13 Mar 2026C/71432/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal examined whether to set aside penalty on a truck owner who claimed the vehicle was sold to a third party before seizure. The court set aside the penalty but upheld the confiscation order.

What did the court decide?

Penalty imposed under Section 112(1) was set aside; confiscation order under Section 112A was not interfered with.

Shri Paramjeet Singh vs Patna( Appeal) — CESTAT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO.2

¶3

Customs Appeal No.71432 of 2013

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.01/CUS/CC/DRI/12 dated 18.01.2012 (Date of issue 20.01.2012) passed by Commissioner of Customs, Patna)

¶5

Shri Paramjeet Singh

¶6

(S/O-Sri Mehma Singh, R/O-302, Vishnupuri Colony Annex, P.S.-Bhawarkuan, District-Indore, Madhya Pradesh)

¶7

Appellant VERSUS

¶8

Commr. of Customs, Patna

¶9

(Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-800001)

¶10

Respondent

¶11

APPEARANCE :

¶12

Mr. Swarbhanu Bhattacharya, Advocate & MS. Daraksha F. Khan, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. S. Chakraborty, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

HON’BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶15

FINAL ORDER NO.75383/2026 Date of Hearing : 10^th March 2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026

¶16

PER R. MURALIDHAR

¶17

Being aggrieved by the impugned order OIO No. 01/CUS/CC/DRI/12 dated 18-01-2012, wherein the vehicle number MP09KC-9266 has been confiscated and an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- lakhs has been given and personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed, the appellant is before the Tribunal.

¶18

The learned Counsel submits that the truck number BR-IG/2278 carrying 1670 kgs of Betel Nuts was intercepted and seized on 02.10.2009. On verification, the officials found that the Number Plate

¶19

¶20

C/71432/2013

¶21

BR-IG/2278 was a fake number and the original Number Plate bearing registration number MP-09KC-9266 was found within the vehicle. Along with many other noticees, a notice was also issued to the appellant on the ground that he was the owner of this vehicle which was transporting the smuggled Betel Nuts. The show-cause notice proposed confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of penalty on the appellant under section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority ordered for confiscation of the vehicle giving an option to redeem the same on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

¶22

The Learned Advocate submits that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle as on the date (02.10.2009) of the seizure. He submits documentary evidence in the form of the Notarized copy Finance-Cum-Sale Agreement dated 13.08.2009, in Hindi Language. As per this Agreement, the appellant has sold the vehicle Number MP09KC-9266 to Shri Kishore Gaur. He also submits copy of the Summary of this Agreement in English language. In view of this Agreement, the Learned Counsel submits that no case is made out against the appellant Shri Paramjit Singh who was neither responsible for the alleged movement of smuggled Betel Nuts on 2/10/2009 nor for changing of the number plate in the vehicle. He further submits that no proper investigation was made to ascertain the ownership of the truck by the appellant, inspite of the appellant bringing in this point before the Adjudicating authority. He further submits that since the appellant is not the owner of the vehicle, the appellant is not seeking to set aside the confiscation order. He is only litigating the penalty imposed on him.

¶23

The learned Counsel also submits that while the goods have been confiscated absolutely and penalties have been imposed in respect of a total of 30 persons, to the best of his knowledge, no other person has filed any appeal before the Tribunal. Only the present appellant being genuinely aggrieved by the penalty imposed on him, is before the

¶24

¶25

C/71432/2013

¶26

Tribunal. In view of these submissions, he prays that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the penalty imposed.

¶27

The learned AR submits that the role of the appellant has been discussed in detail by the Adjudicating Authority. He draws our attention to Para 1.42 of the OIO, wherein it is clearly recorded that the appellant (Noticee number 12) did not cooperate during the investingation and was repeatedly ignoring the summons. After the truck was seized, he took more than two months to appear before the Adjudicating Authority. Only after about two months, for the first time he brought in the argument about the vehicle being sold in August 2009, which is clearly an afterthought.

¶28

The learned AR also submits that in the Writ Petition before the High Court, the appellant has claimed the ownership of the vehicle. This shows that the real owner of the vehicle is appellant only. In view of these submissions, he prays that the appeal may be dismissed.

¶29

Heard both the sides. We have gone through the appeal papers and documentary evidence placed before us.

¶30

We find that the appellant has enclosed one Finance-Cum-Sale agreement towards vehicle number MP-09KC-9266 (in Hindi language) has been produced by the appellant. In this agreement, said to be made on 13.08.2009, it shows that the appellant Shri Pramjeet Singh is seller and one Kishore Gaur is buyer of the vehicle. The first two pages of this agreement (in Hindi) are scanned below:-

C/71432/2013

C/71432/2013

On going through the Para 1.42 of the OIO, we observe that indeed the appellant Shri Pramjeet Singh (Noticee Number 12) has sent a letter to the Revenue officials stating that he has sold the truck to Shri Kishore Gaur. It is also on record that the appellant has claimed the ownership in the Writ Petition before the High Court of Patna. Since the appellant has stated that the vehicle has been sold to Kishore Gaur, a query was raised on the AR as to what further action was taken to

¶36

¶37

C/71432/2013

¶38

verify this claim. The Learned AR takes us through the Para 1.43 and Para 1.44 of the OIO. While at Para 1.43, it is recorded that Shri Kishore Gaur was avoiding taking the summons issued by the department, Para 1.44 clarifies that he has recorded a statement under Section 14 before the Assistant Commissioner (Preventive). The details of Para 1.44 is reproduced below:-

¶39

1.44 Assistant Commissioner (Prev.), Office of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Manik Bagh Palace, Indore (M.P) vide his letter C.No. IV(16)20/2009/Prev/20965 dated 10.06.2010 informed that address verification of Kishore Gaur has been conducted and a Panchnama has been drawn on the given address and Statement of Sri Kishore Gaur was recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Sri Kishore Gaur inter alia stated in his statement:

¶40

that he is the resident of House No.06, Suraj Nagar, Behind Mayur Hospital, Indore(M.P);

¶41

that he has been working as driver and transport agent since twenty five years;

¶42

that Sri Paramjeet Singh is the owner of truck No. MP-09KC/9266 and he has deployed a driver namely Dinesh on the said truck;

¶43

that he has hired the truck No. MP-09KC/9266 from Sri Paramjeet Singh on the monthly rent of Rs.50,000/-;

¶44

that he has sent the said truck loaded with Glucose bottles to Patna;

¶45

that on being asked about the owner of the said goods, he has not given a satisfactory answer.

¶46

It is observed that Sri Kishore Gaur (Noticee 29) hired the truck having registration number MP-09KC/9266 from Sri Paramjeet Singh on monthly rental basis. It needs to mention here that truck bearing Regn. No. MP-09KC/9266 was loaded with 16705 kgs. of betel nuts of third

¶47

¶48

C/71432/2013

¶49

country origin and the said truck was affixed with fake registration plate.

¶50

From the above statement, we gather that Shri Kishore Gaur has not claimed the ownership of the vehicle. However, he has stated that he has taken the truck on lease from the appellant Shri Pramjeet Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/-. He has also confirmed that he got the the truck loaded with glucose bottles for delivery at Patna.

¶51

From the above question and answer recorded from Shri Kishore Gaur, it is clear that the truck was being handled by him for the transportation purposes. Nowhere has he held that the actual control towards loading, unloading and transportation, etc. was being monitored by the appellant Shri Paramjit Singh.

¶52

From the above factual details, there emerges the following contrasting details:-

¶53

(a) The appellant has brought in documents showing that this has been sold to Sri Kishore Gaur on 13.08.2009. In respect of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant claiming ownership of the vehicle, the learned Counsel submits that since the full value of the consideration was not met by the buyer, Shri Kishore Gaur, the appellant has taken this stand as the owner before the High Court. It is further submitted that since there were some more amounts due to the finance company, the actual registration could not be transferred to the Shri Kishore Gaur who was actually operating the truck for all practical purposes.

¶54

(b) Shri Kishore Gaur has stated that he has taken the vehicle of on monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/-, but did not state that he is the owner of the truck

¶55

In any view of the matter, the factual details show that the actual control of the vehicle remained with Kishore Gaur. The activities of loading, unloading, transportation etc., have been undertaken only by Shri Kishore Gaur. He also has not implicated the appellant in any way.

¶56

¶57

C/71432/2013

¶58

Even if we consider the Adjudicating Authority’s argument that the agreement produced is an afterthought document, we find that no effort has been made by the Revenue to check the veracity of this document. The queries put to Shri Kishore Gaur are not exhaustive so as to bring in any corroborative evidence to the effect that Shri Paramjit Singh was responsible for the transportation of the alleged smuggled goods, or he was instrumental in changing the number plates of the trucks.

¶59

After giving due consideration to the above factual details, we do not find that any effective case has been made out against the appellant Shri Paramjit Singh to impose penalty under section 112 (1). Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on him.

¶60

Since the appellant has claimed that he is not the owner of the vehicle by producing the documents to the effect that the same stands sold to Shri Kishore Gaur on 2/10/2009 and the Ld Cousel has confirmed that they are agitating only the penalty imposed on the appellant, we are not interfering with the confiscation order in respect of this vehicle.

¶61

The appeal stands partly allowed thus.

¶62

(Pronounced in the open court on 13.03.2026.)

¶63

Sd/Member (Judicial)

¶64

Sd/(Rajeev Tandon) Member (Technical)

¶65

Pooja

Shri Paramjeet Singh v. Patna( Appeal)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Paramjeet Singh v. Patna( Appeal)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Anand vs Mundra

Sai Exports vs Mundra

Sai Exports vs Mundra

Satyam Polyplast vs Mundra

Krupadeep Traders vs the Commissioner of Customs-Pune-I

Nikraj Commodity vs Nhava Sheva - I

Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Private Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs Acc Exports-New Delhi

Rajiv Kumar Gaur vs Commissioner of Customs Airport & General-New Delhi