TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd the ld. Counsel for the appellant/ assessee and ld. DR for the respondent/ Revenue. 2. The appeals are preferred against the common adjudication order dated 25.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), IGI Airport, New Delhi dated 25.02.2009, as confirmed by common order dated 02.06.2009 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. 3. A routine check of a bus bound for Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han applied for possession of the gold bar. The application was allowed by the JMIC, Panipat vide order dated 15.09.2005 on furnishing a guarantee of Rs. 10 lakh alongwith an undertaking that the property would be furnished as and when required. Meanwhile, customs authorities enquired with the bank to confirm about the legal import of the gold which had Swiss markings and an identification number.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bar to the father Suraj Mohan Chauhan on 17.05.2005 for Rs. 6 lakhs plus VAT; that the brand name is not mentioned in the bill as per the trade practice; that the firm had purchased the gold from M/s S.K. Impex, Delhi. The Partner of M/s S.K. Impex was examined thereafter. On 20.11.2007, the Partner of M/s S.K. Impex stated that the gold bar in issue was sold to M/s Vansh Enterprises during April ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; offered an option to redeem the gold on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; imposed penalties as specified, under Section 112(b) on the father and the son; penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/s Vansh Enterprises under Section 112(b); but dropped charges against M/s S. K. Impex, Delhi. 5. Appeals by father and son were reject....