TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gms and also penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Police of Muzaffarnagar on 02.01.2015 arrested two persons (appellants) viz Mohd. Waseem and Shri Javed alongwith eight gold biscuits and registered Criminal Case No. 12/2015 (State vs. Mohd Waseem and others vide FIR No. 5/2015 dated 02.01.2015). The said gold biscuits were recovered from possession of Mohd Waseem who was travelling in the taxi of Shri Javed. 3. The Police further transferred the case to the officers of Customs (Prev) Commissionerate, Lucknow who detained the said gold on 01.04.2015 by serving Detention Memo upon Inspector Indharge of Thana Chapaar Sadar, Muzaffarnagar. 4. The Customs Officers also searched th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings of Alam at Delhi International Airport. Regarding the knowhow of settings of Alam at Delhi International Airport he showed his innocence and could not produce any document in support of illicit import. On the same day Shri Jawed also in custody in his submission stated that he is a taxi driver and on 02 January, 2015 was drunk and alongwith Mohd Waseem had got into altercation with driver/owner of the Ambassador who had not given him pass and he had no connection with the smuggling of the Gold Biscuits nor any Gold Biscuits had been recovered from his possession in the search of his person by the Police of Kotwali, Chapaar Sadar, Muzaffarnagar. The seized gold bars were valued by the Approved Government Valuer on 04 March, 2015 totally....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....op Sahi prapt karta ka pata nahi lagta wapas . 11. Accordingly, it appeared to Revenue that the defence put up by Mohd Naseem brother of Mohd Waseem is by way of afterthought and not reliable. Accordingly, vide the show cause notice issued on these appellant dated 29 June, 2015 proposed to confiscate the seized eight pieces of Gold Bars and further penalty was proposed on the appellants under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Defence reply was filed by Mohd Alam denying all the charges and allegations. Mohd Javed also denied all charges stating that he was nowhere involved in the smuggling and he was only faring the appellant Mohd Waseem in his taxi, the appellant Mohd Waseem also contested the show cause notice by filing a reply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- Mohd Waseem Rs. 2 lakhs, - Shri Javed Rs. 2 lakhs, - Mohd Alam Rs. 3 lakhs. 12. Being aggrieved by this order, appellant(s) preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to reject the appeal of Mohd Waseem and Shri Javed vide OIO dated 16 November, 2016 as both of them had filed appeal jointly. The appeal of Mohd Alam was rejected as time barred. 13. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this Tribunal. Learned counsel states that the appellant of Mohd Alam was not time bar as the impugned order was communicated and received by him on 26 September, 2015 and the appeal was filed on 28th December, 2015 before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, time taken was total 89 days and as such it was within th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the department. 17. Importation of gold is not prohibited and thus Adjudicating Authority has erred and absolutely confiscated the same contrary to the provisions Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. 18. Mere failure on the part of the appellant, Mohd. Waseem to produce the duty paying documents immediately at the time of recovery, does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the recovered gold bars were smuggled. In view of the above/foregoing premises it is prayed that the absolute confiscation be set aside, gold may be ordered to be released to Shri Mohd. Waseem from whose possession the gold bars were recovered. 19. The learned AR for the Revenue relied on the impugned order. 20. Having considered the rival contentions a....