TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties on appellants have been imposed. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants namely Shri Umesh Kumar and Shri Ajay Kumar were intercepted at Lucknow, Railway Station who were travelling by Saptkranti Express on 22nd November, 2013 to Anand Vihar, Delhi. During the course of interception, four Gold Bars weighing 1kg each were recovered from their luggage. On the basis of the markings on the Gold Bars it was presumed that these Gold Bars are of third country origin and statements of both the appellants were recorded who have stated that Gold has been handed over by Shri Sanjeeb Kumar @ Pappu Kumar to them. On the basis of the statements recorded, another appellant Shri Sanjeeb Kumar @ Pappu Kumar was also interrogated. Thereafter, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf of the Revenue submits that in this case Shri Umesh Kumar in his statement has admitted that Gold is being smuggled from Nepal by Shri Sanjeeb Kumar, therefore, Revenue has established that Gold in question is smuggled one and if of third country origin. The appellants have failed to prove that the Gold in question is not smuggled one. In that circumstances, the Revenue has rightly absolute confiscated the Gold in question. 5. Heard the parties. 6. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the appellants have failed to prove the source of procurement of Gold, therefore, we hold that Gold is smuggled one but on the same time, Revenue is also failed to prove that Gold is of third country origin and smuggled through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g "Johnson Mathey 9990 London". Naik J. observed in his judgment that the markings do not speak for themselves and that evidence would be hearsay evidence. There was nothing to indicate that the markings were really done by Johnson Mathey in London. No presumption can arise in regard to the markings, unless there is evidence to show that those markings were made by a particular company in the ordinary course of business. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has also taken a similar view in Asstt. Collector of Customs, Baroda, v. M. Ibrahim Pirjada, 1970 Criminal Law Journal, 1305. There, the Gujarat High Court has held that mere markings cannot be taken as proof of the fact of foreign origin of the goods as such markings and labels wo....