TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pramod Kumar Dudi, aged 40 years, son of Prabhu Dayal Dudi, resident of Ward No.11, Ranjeetpura (Nandrampura), Mandrella, Jhunjhunun, Rajasthan-333025, the Appellant herein. The 21 gold biscuits were found packed in 8 packets wrapped with black adhesive tape on top and yellow adhesive tape inside and all the packets were found concealed in three spectacle cases. The three spectacle cases were recovered from his trouser pockets. The Appellant produced 5 tax invoices in support of his legal possession and transportation of the 21 gold biscuits. The CISF staffs handed over the Appellant along with the detected gold pieces to the Superintendent (AIU), Customs, for necessary verification. At the Customs Divisional Office, Sangakpham, Imphal, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was on account of bona fide purchase made by the Appellant and other connected persons and that applicable duty had been discharged on such gold. In support of his contention, he invited the attention of the Bench to the purchase invoices and the corresponding entries in the Bank statement since the payments were made by A/c. Payee Cheques for most of the transactions and are annexed to the Appeal Paper Book. He further submitted that the Appellant had claimed ownership of 2158 gms gold while one Mr. Vishal had visited the Customs office at Imphal and had claimed ownership of 1328 gms of gold. Mr. Vishal had not been made a Noticee in the Show Cause Notice since the Customs Department had failed to find the relevant information at the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the seized goods are not liable for confiscation. iii) Whether the penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is liable to be imposed upon the Appellant. 6. On perusal of the Appeal records and after considering the submissions made by the parties, we find that the Appellant was intercepted at the Imphal International Airport while he was carrying 21 gold biscuits with 'KTS' marking on 20 biscuits and 'MNOF0F0' marking on one biscuit, totally weighing 3486 gms. Out of the seized goods, the Appellant has claimed ownership of 2158 gms of gold in respect of which the Appellant has produced purchase invoices. Further, the Appellant has produced Vasihatnama dated 04.08.1998, which is a Will executed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion order that the documents produced by the Appellant were fabricated. Had the Adjudicating authority suspected of such foul play, they could have easily examined the jewellers who had issued the invoices to the Appellant to establish the correct factual position. Therefore, we find that the Appellant has produced sufficient evidence in support of its claim for ownership of 2158 gms of seized goods. 8. Further, we find that the Revenue has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the seized goods had indeed been smuggled from Myanmar. In order to hold that the seized goods are smuggled goods, the Revenue has sought to rely upon Order-in-Original No.CCP/NER/15/2019 dated 24.09.2019 to state that certain goods, being gold bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s attained finality. Therefore, the Adjudicating authority could not have proceeded to hold the Appellant liable on the basis of mere conjectures. 9. In respect of the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant with respect to the claim of ownership of 1328 gms. of the seized goods by one Mr. Vishal, we find that although vide letter dated 06.12.2019, the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Meghalaya acknowledges the letter dated 14.10.2019 addressed by Mr. Vishal to the Customs authorities, the office of the Commissioner denies that Mr. Vishal had ever visited their office. Further, at the time of issuance of the Show Cause Notice, the Revenue did not possess the required details in respect of Mr. Visha....