TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Seizure Appeal Rejection: Proof of Legal Acquisition Crucial</h1> <h3>GUNAVANTRAI SETH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, BBSR-I</h3> GUNAVANTRAI SETH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, BBSR-I - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 380 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:1. Seizure of gold and currency during search operations.2. Legal acquisition of gold and currency.3. Confiscation and penalty imposition.4. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection.Analysis:1. The case involved the seizure of gold and currency during simultaneous search operations at the shop premises of M/s. Babulal & Co. and the residential premises of the proprietor. Various gold items, including primary gold biscuits of foreign origin and Indian currency, were recovered during the search. The appellant voluntarily produced additional gold biscuits during the operation.2. The issue of legal acquisition of the seized gold and currency arose during the proceedings. The appellant attempted to prove the legal acquisition through an invoice from a jeweler. However, discrepancies were found between the markings on the seized gold and the description in the invoice. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the legal acquisition, which was not adequately discharged.3. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued, leading to the confiscation of the gold and currency by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of M/s. Babulal & Co. but rejected the appeal of the proprietor, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties.4. The appellant contended that the gold was covered by a genuine sale invoice and should not have been confiscated based on presumption and suspicion. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove the legal acquisition of the seized gold satisfactorily. The lack of detailed description in the invoice and the absence of a clear link between the seized gold and the invoice led to the rejection of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the authorities below, rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing a clear link between seized items and supporting documents to prove legal acquisition satisfactorily. The appeal was dismissed on 28-9-2004.
TaxTMI 