2018 (2) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llaneous Application (COD) is allowed. 3. During the course of argument, it is seen that at the time of filing of Misc.Application (COD) before the Tribunal enclosing all appeal papers, the Registry has erroneously given an additional Cus.Appeal No.76280/2017, which has not been originally filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 4. With the consent of both sides, the Cus.Appeal Nos.76133/17 & 75819/17, are being taken up for final disposal. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 19.11.2013, the Customs Officers visited the Workshop of Badal Das Khan at 88, Monohar Das Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata 700 007 and found that the Gold is being melted in one Furnace. After s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wo months twenty six days from the date of seizure. It is further submitted that during the investigation one of the purported purchaser of the gold had not appeared in response to the Summons. It is also submitted that gold is notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the burden of proof is lying with the person to establish that the same is not smuggled one. 10. For the proper appreciation of the case, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below : "12. I have carefully gone through the case records, records of personal hearing and all other evidences on record. The first issue required to be decided in these appeals is whether the seized gold is of foreign origin. The said 25 cut pieces of gold o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al pronouncements cited supra, I am of the considered view that the Department was acting on no evidence and there is no iota of evidence that seized gold bars are of foreign origin or smuggled into India and the Department by way of investigation could not reveal that documents produced by the owner of the said seized goods are false or fabricated. As the burden cast upon the appellants under Section 123 of the said Act has been fully discharged by them, the seized goods are not confiscable and are to be returned to its rightful owner. As such, I set aside the confiscation of the said seized gold valued altogether Rs. 31,55,101/- and imposition of penalty on the appellants." On perusal of the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (A....