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 gold confiscation & penalties under Customs Act, shifting burden of proof.</h1> <h3>Bala Nagu Naga Raju Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur GST</h3> Bala Nagu Naga Raju Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur GST - TMI Issues Involved:1. Invocability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Legitimacy of the confiscation of gold as foreign origin and illegally imported.3. Liability of the appellants for penalty.Summary:First Issue: Invocability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962Section 123 of the Customs Act postulates the theory of 'reverse burden of proof.' The section applies when goods are seized under reasonable belief of being smuggled, shifting the burden of proof to the possessor. The appellant admitted under Section 108 of the Customs Act that the gold was of foreign origin and smuggled. This admission justifies invoking Section 123, shifting the burden to the appellant to prove otherwise. The Tribunal affirmed that Section 123 was rightly invoked by the department.Second Issue: Legitimacy of the Confiscation of GoldThe appellant argued that the gold was purchased in India and not smuggled. However, the delayed retraction and lack of credible evidence to support the claim of legal purchase failed to discharge the burden of proof. The recovered gold did not match the description in the invoices provided. The gold's purity indicated foreign origin, and its concealment justified confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(i) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, noting the appellant's failure to prove the gold was not smuggled.Third Issue: Liability of the Appellants for PenaltyThe appellant's possession of the gold, acknowledged as smuggled and purchased at a cheaper rate, rendered them liable under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authorities, emphasizing the broad scope of Section 112(b) to penalize individuals dealing with goods liable for confiscation.ConclusionAll three points of adjudication were decided in favor of the Revenue and against the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the confiscation of the gold and the penalties imposed.
TaxTMI 