TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f gold bars weighing in total 1958.240 gms. valuing Rs. 60,70,540/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed following respective penalties upon the appellants/ noticees: Sri Vikash Agarwal (Noticee No.1) - Rs. 15,00,000/- M/s. Agarwal Gold House (Noticee No.2) - Rs. 1,00,000/- Sri Mohanlal @ Ram (Noticee No.3) - Rs. 50,000/- M/s. Ambika Jewellers (Noticee No.4) - Rs. 1,00,000/- M/s. Harimanthan Jewellery House(Noticee No.5)-Rs. 1,00,000/- Sri Davender Kumar (Noticee No.6) - Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. Sri Vikash Agarwal, being proprietor of M/s. Agarwal Gold house has preferred conjoint appeal for himself as well as for his proprietorship firm challenging the order of confiscation of seized gold and imposition of penalties. Other Appellants in appeal are precisely against the imposition of respective penalty upon them. 4. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the only finding recorded at para 27 of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 15.10.2015 is perverse and far away from facts on record. He drew reference to Invoice No. Pat/13-14/5 dated 22.04.2013 issued by M/s. Ambika Jewellers in favour M/s. Agarwal Gold House towards purchase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oprietor of M/s. Agarwal Gold House. The investigation of the DRI has revealed that sellers of the gold had admitted the fact of sale of respective gold under their respective invoices in favour of Agarwal Gold House. Such sellers had also disclosed their respective purchase, which actually could not be disputed by DRI. 7. He also submitted that the allegation of DRI that since an account payee cheque was issued by Agarwal Gold House to Harimanthan Jewellery House Pvt. Ltd., but later the payment for purchase under Invoice no. 057 dated 15.02.2014 was made on 13.03.2014 through RTGS, the transaction was not genuine, has no leg to stand in law inasmuch as the transaction has been admitted upon corroborative documents and there is nothing contrary on-record to negate the same. Moreover, M/s. Harimanthan Jewellery House Pvt. Ltd, during investigation, submitted their purchase invoice also, which could not be disputed by the investigating authority. The allegation of DRI on the basis of letter dated 12.06.2014 issued by the HDFC Bank, Patna that there was no purchase of gold by Ambika Jewellers and hence their sale in turn in favour of the Agarwal Gold House is fake, is ill founded in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use Pvt. Ltd., the Appellate Commissioner has mechanically recorded and followed the objections of the Department on flimsy grounds without any finding of his own. He also submitted that Vikash Agarwal under his letter dated 26.03.2014 before DRI submitted documents and prayed for release of seized gold and his subsequent statements dated 05.06.2014 and 06.06.2014 were recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by DRI when he stated that being regular purchaser from Jalan & Co. of Kolkata, on 28.02.2014 he had inadvertently stated that part of seized gold was also purchased therefrom which was not a fact. Such letter and statements are part of relied upon documents to show cause notice and hence, cannot be ignored while adjudicating the matter. 10. We have gone through the records and documents placed before us and considered the rival contentions of both the parties at length. 11. We find that the issue in the present case is whether the Appellants, particularly Sri Vikash Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Agarwal Gold House of Muzzafarpur, has discharged the burden of proof under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 with respect to the gold weighing 1958.240 gms. as was seized by DRI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the understanding of the parties thereof cannot by any stretch of imagination lead to the conclusion that the transaction was not genuine. Moreover, the trail of purchase by Harimanthan Jewellery House Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi from M/s. Diamond Hut India Pvt. Ltd. of Karol Bagh, New Delhi was also available before the investigating authority, which could not even be disputed. The records and documents maintained by Harimanthan Jewellery House Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi was also subjected to verification by the investigating authority which could not deny the fact of sale by Harimanthan Jewellery House Pvt. Ltd. on 15.02.2014 in favour of Agarwal Gold House. Mere mentioning during investigation on 28.02.2014 by Vikash Agarwal that the purchase was from Jalan & Co. of Kolkata, cannot be even a circumstance to discredit the documentary evidences produced before the investigating authority and subjected to vivid investigation by DRI. It is apparent that DRI has also recorded subsequent statements of Vikash Agarwal and followed the trail of his purchase from Harimanthan Jewellery House Pvt. Ltd. and being unsuccessful in disproving such transaction between the parties, an effort has been made to ....