TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an. The officers seized the gold bar in presence of witnesses. From the investigations made, it appeared to the department that the said C. Rajan had made arrangements to sell gold bar to one Sri Ramesh through one Shri Sathik; that Shri P. Balamurugan (appellant herein) was contacted by Shri C. Rajan and asked him to arrange 1 KG gold bar. Shri S. Balamurugan owner of M/s. Palanimurugan Jewellery handed over the gold bar on credit basis to Shri P. Balamurugan. Department harboured the view that the said persons were involved in possession and transaction of smuggled foreign gold bars and had contravened the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, hence a show cause notice was issued, inter alia proposing confiscation of goods un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial to show that the gold bar in question was smuggled at a point anterior to its purchase. In fact, nobody talks about the alleged smuggling of the gold bar in question. In this connection, the appellant seeks to rely upon the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of S.K.Chains Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2001 (127) ELT 415 (Tri. Mum.) [Paras 4 to 10], which has since been followed in Samir Kumar Roy Vs. Commissioner of Customs - 2001 (135) ELT 1036 (Tri.-Kolkata) and in Kapildeo Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) reported in 2002 (142) ELT 668, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in 2011 (272) ELT 31 (Pat.). In the last of the cases, above cited, it was pointed out that merely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities below to the effect that the markings on the gold bar being different from the bill of entry and details submitted by Surana Corporation who has sold to M/s.Palanimurugan Jewellery is a mere suspicion without there being any substantive proof and on that basis alone the gold bar in question cannot be confiscated. 3. On the other hand, on behalf of Revenue, Ld. A.R Shri B. Balamurugan opposes the appeal. Ld. A.R further contends that implicatory role of the appellant has been clearly established by both the original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submits that it has also been established that the gold bar confiscated was not the same as the one claimed to have been purchased out of the gold imported by MMT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amurugan of Palanimurugan Jewellery had deposed that he had brought one kg gold bar from M/s.Surana Corporation on 08.08.2010. On further enquiry, M/s.Surana Corporation confirmed that Palanimurugan Jewellery had purchased 1 kg. imported gold bar on 09.08.2010 vide credit invoice No.G1591. It was also informed that they had received payment for the above invoice through RTGS dt. 10.08.2010. It is further seen that Surana Corporation have sought to link the impugned gold bar with the lot of 1000 nos. of 1 kg. gold bars imported by MMTC Ltd., Chennai on 27.07.2010. The show cause notice dt. 04.02.2011 issued in this case narrates inter alia, that seized gold bar had foreign markings (FMG). It is also narrated that a seizure mahazar had been d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffort has also been made by these persons to connect the impugned bar with the import of 1000 gold bars made by M/s. MMTC Ltd., Chennai to contend that the impugned gold bar has not been smuggled. The only fly in the ointment is that there is a definite discrepancy in the markings found on the impugned gold bar vis-à-vis markings on the gold bars imported by MMTC Ltd., Chennai. 5.3 Viewed in this light, the claim of having acquired and being in possession of legally imported gold bar, will surely crumble. We are therefore of the considered opinion that based on the facts on record, the burden of proving that the gold is not smuggled is inter alia on the appellants herein and secondly, such a burden has not been satisfactorily cast o....