IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.617 of 2007 Manohar Lal Kejriwal son of late Gopal Prasad Kejriwal, resident of Mai Aasthan, Balughat, Muzaffarpur … Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Patna … Respondent ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Dwivedi Surendra, Advocate 8 13.4.2011 Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti for the appellant and Mr. Dwivedi Surendra for the respondent. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), against the order dated 13.7.2007, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant, apart from others who are not before us has been rejected. The appeal before the Tribunal was, in its turn, directed against the order dated 30.3.2004, passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs, Patna. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The authorities under the Act had intercepted three trucks carrying Dalda manufactured in Nepal. The two trucks being driven by 2 Panchdeo Rai and Bhushan Yadav were carrying consignment from Birat Nagar (Nepal), to Ranchi (Jharkhand). The third truck was driven by Sunil Prasad and was carrying consignment from Birat Nagar (Nepal), to Ranchi (Jharkhand). The three trucks were intercepted on 23.5.2003, in the proximity of Katihar. Statements of the three drivers were recorded as per the prescribed procedure who uniformly stated that the goods belonged to Shri Rajaram, Shri Shiv Shankar, and Md. Hakim in Nepal, and were moving at the behest of Vishnu Kumar Kejriwal, the appellant‟s son. The three drivers in their statements before the investigating agency uniformly stated that they were moving as per the instructions of Vishunu Kumar Kejriwal, and had, inter alia, been given two mobile cell numbers. One of them namely no. 9835213666 was in the name of the present appellant, and other mobile number, namely, 9431238274 was in the name of Vishnu Kumar Kejriwal. 3.1. The authorities summoned the appellant for interrogation but he refused to respond at all. Vishnu Kumar Kejriwal was taken into custody and 3 confiscation proceeding commenced. The learned Commissioner of Customs disposed of the matter by his aforesaid order dated 30.3.2004, whereby he ordered for confiscation of the goods and imposed cash fine on different persons. He imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- on the present appellant. He and Vishnu Kumar Kejriwal preferred separate appeals before the learned Tribunal which has been disposed of by a common order and impugned herein. We are concerned only with the appellant, Manohar Lal Kejriwal. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that the present appeal does not raise any substantial question of law within the meaning of section 130 of the Act. Section 130 to the extent relevant in the present appeal is reproduced hereinbelow: “130. Appeal to High Court.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not 4 being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law”. This section is substantially in Pari Materia with section 260A of the Income Tax Act, as well as Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The scope of section 260A was considered by us in our judgment dated 30.3.2011 passed in M.A. No.657 of 2010 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sulabh International Social Service Organization), wherein we have held that the scope of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act and section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are very narrow. Adequacy of materials can never be a substantial question of law. 5. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, the learned Commissioner as well as the learned Tribunal have concurrently found that the mobile number in the name of the present appellant was freely used by all 5 KHAN concerned in the entire range of transactions. We are unable to accede to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that this is inadequate to implicate the appellant. As alleged hereinabove, inadequacy of material to reach a particular finding of fact does not give rise to a substantial question of law. Further more, also take exception to non-appearance of the appellant during the course of investigation. Therefore, the authorities were free to draw adverse inference against the appellant. 6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. It does not raise any question at all, let alone a substantial question of law. The substantial questions of law formulated by the appellant are answered against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.K. Katriar,J) (S.P.Singh,J)