TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and unaccounted cash in demonetized currency to the tune of Rs. 3.5 Crores and 17 gold biscuits weighing 1578.35 grams (inclusive of 15 gold biscuits with foreign markings) valuated at Rs. 47 lakhs. The unaccounted cash and gold biscuits were seized as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1. Shri. Ravi Kumar R.M. in his statement recorded on 22/11/2016 under the provisions of Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 stated that he and his father Shri. Mallikarjunappa were partners of the said firm, which was into the business of lending money on short term basis to landlords, farmers, small business people and small contractors. Further, he agreed with the seizure of unaccounted cash in demonetized currency and 17 gold biscuits and that he was neither in possession of any valid purchase invoice/documents nor of any customs duty paid challan for the 15 gold biscuits with foreign markings. He also stated that the said foreign marked gold biscuits were purchased from a person referred by M/s. Davanam Jeweller's to convert the huge demonetized cash available with them. Hence, a show-cause notice dated 11/05/2017 was issued to Shri. Ravi Kumar R.M. as to why, the 17 gold biscuit seiz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant has also submitted purchase invoices in respect of 15 gold biscuits from Sl. No. 1 to 15 of the Annexure 'A' to the show-cause notice. The copies of invoices issued by M/s. Adya Jewellers and Sai Thirumala Jewellers, Bangalore have also been enclosed to the reply to the show-cause notice submitted to the adjudicating authority. He also submitted that the remaining 2 gold biscuits listed under Sl. No. 16 & 17 in Annexure 'A' to the show-cause notice were procured from (i) HDFC Bank 50 grams Fine Gold, and (ii) Credit Suisse One Ounce Fine Gold. The appellant has submitted that these two gold biscuits were purchased by the appellant's father more than 8 years ago and the relevant invoices could not be traced. He also submitted that the Jewellers who have sold 15 gold biscuits have issued valid tax invoices in the name of the appellant and on payment of applicable VAT on the sale of the gold. Accordingly, the appellants have proved licit purchase of gold from the gold jewellers by producing purchase invoices. Further the said jewellers have furnished certificate dated 11/01/2018 and 20/01/2018 respectively confirming the details of sale of gold biscuits to the appellant and copi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rev), Patna-I - 2019-TIOL-1352-CESTAT-KOL c. Naveed Ahmed Khan Vs. CC, Bangalore - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 494 (Tri.-Bang.) d. E Eswara Reddy Vs. Commr. of Customs, Hyd.-II - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 410 (Tri.-Bang.) e. Mahesh B Mali Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Pune - 2012 (286) E.L.T. 375 (T) f. Kamal Kumar Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 506 (T) g. Ram Lubhaya Vs. Commr. of Customs, New Delhi - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 807 (T) h. Jitendra Pawar Vs. Commr. of Customs, Raipur - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 622 (T) i. Manoj Kumar Vs. Commr. of Customs - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 811 (T) 4.1. It is his further submission that once the appellants have submitted the copies of purchase invoices for purchase of gold biscuits from the local jewellers and also furnished certificate confirming the sale of gold biscuits on payment of VAT, then there cannot be any doubt or dispute with regard to bona fide transaction of purchase of gold from the authorized dealers. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Commr. of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal - 2017 (348) E.L.T. 555 (T) b. S.K. Chains Vs. CC (Prev.), Mumbai - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 415 (T) c.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receipt for the payment of custom duty and the same is very much wanting in this case and in the absence of the same, we find it difficult to accept the case of the Petitioner that the gold, that has been imported by Shamsudeen and the gold seized from the Petitioner were one and the same. Hence, we reject the contention of the Petitioner. 13. With regard to the Silver bars seized, it has been well established that the total weights noted in the three baggage receipts do not tally with the ingots and on that score alone, the contention of the Petitioner that the silver bars were duly imported and duty paid cannot be accepted. The Petitioner has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him and the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that the silver bars were duly imported and duty paid cannot be accepted. 14. From the abovesaid discussions, we hold that the petitioner is disentitled to sustain his claim and the petitioner has not given a proper account of his possession of the gold bars and silver and the receipt produced do not relate to the goods seized and the petitioner has failed to prove the licit import of gold and silver and all these aspects were taken note of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are authorized to import and sell gold. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly held that the 6 gold biscuits were legally possessed and has not confiscated the same. As far as remaining gold biscuits are concerned, they have the foreign markings and the appellant while making statement to the DRI officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act has stated that they have purchased the said biscuits from M/s. Davanam Jewellers but the same has been refuted by the Davanam Jewellers when the Department made enquiry from them. Further I find that in his statement made twice before the DRI officer, he has not stated anything regarding the purchase of these biscuits from M/s. Sai Thirumala Jewellers and M/s. Adya Jewellers. He has not even named the jewellers in his statement at all. The invoices issued by these jewellers were brought on record for the first time while replying to the show-cause notice and therefore the Department could not investigate from the said jewellers regarding the authenticity of these invoices. Further I find that the retraction of the statement by a Sworn Affidavit is not valid because the said alleged affidavit was not produced before any authority and ....