TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the seized gold jewellery does not bear any foreign marking, still the officers of Customs has effected the seizure. Thereafter the Appellants were asked as to why the seized gold jewellery should not be confiscated and as to why penalty should not be imposed. 3. The appellants vide reply dated 14.10.2022 have given their reply. After the completion of personal hearing, Order-in-Original No. 13/2022-23 (cus.) -AC dated 31.03.2023 was passed absolutely confiscating the gold jewellery and penalty was imposed against the appellants by the Original Authorities. Aggrieved by this Order, they have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Guntur, who vide Order-in-Appeal No.VJD-CUSTM-000-APP-026, 027 & 028-2023-24, dated 31.10.2023 confirmed the Order-in-Original No. 13/2022-23 (Cus)-AC dated 31.03.2023. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Authorities below failed to note that since the seizure is a domestic seizure and the seized jewellery are 18 and 22 carat, it is not required to produce any proof for the same. Assuming such proof is required, the appellants has categorically produced the bills and the evidences, such as from where it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - 1 3 - short chains 1 - Short chain (broken) 19.980 grams Invoice No. 100 dtd. 05.04.2022 of M/s Jain Jewellers, Jai Gurudev Complex, Shop No. 12, Thulasingam Street, Sowkarpet, Chennai Appellant - 2 2 - Mangalasutra Chains 43.840 grams Invoice No. 01 dtd. 05.04.2022 of M/s Jain Jewellers, Jai Gurudev Complex, Shop No. 12, Thulasingam Street, Sowkarpet, Chennai Appellant - 3 1 - Bracelet 27.120 grams Invoice No. 99 dtd. 05.04.2022 of M/s Jain Jewellers, Jai Gurudev Complex, Shop No. 12, Thulasingam Street, Sowkarpet, Chennai 2 - Long Chains 2 - Long Chains Total:- 125.932 gms 2.5 In view of the retraction vide letter dated 23.05.2022 submitted by the Appellant-1 statement dated 14.06.2022 was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act 1962; wherein he stated; that he was tensed at the time of seizure; that the entire gold recovered from him on 05.04.2022 was purchased from M/s Jain Jewellers, Chennai; that he is submitting invoice's and bank transactions as proof for the gold jewellery seized on 05.04.2022; 2.6 On submission of retraction vide letter dated 23.05.2022 by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Shree Jewellers, Chennai and M/s Nizam in Kadapa. Later on stated on 14.06.2022 that he was tensed at the time of seizure that the entire gold recovered from him was purchased from M/s Jain Jewellers, Chennai. Mr. S. Dinesh, Proprietor of M/s Jain Jewellers, Chennai stated in his statement that he got an order over phone dated 05.04.2022 and subsequently received the amount through RTGS to his account that as a trade practice he offer credit facility for 25-30 days for purchase made from his shop for the sincere and committed customers. 9. Shri C. Chandrasekhar, Appellant No. 2 states that he knew the Appellant No. 1 and proprietor of M/s Jain Jewellers as part of his business and he ordered gold jewellery of two mangalasuthras to M/s Jain Jewellers over phone and requested to Appellant No.1 to collect the same and paid the amount on 08.04.2022 through RTGS. 10. Shri K. Madhava, Appellant No.3 stated in his statement that he knew the Appellant No. 1 and Proprietor of M/s Jain Jewellers as part of his business and ordered gold jewellery of 1 Bracelet and 2 long chains to M/s Jain Jewellers, Chennai over phone and also requested to Appellant No. 1 to collect the same and paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai Kureshi [1979 SCC online Bom 267] held that where there was nothing on record to show that the goods were seized by the Police on reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods, Section 123 would not apply. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal Shreyas Agarwal and Other Vs Commissioner of Customs (Prev) in which it is held as follows in para no. 60: 60. The goods must be smuggled goods. The word 'smuggled' means that the goods were of foreign origin and they had been imported from abroad. Only then does the presumption under Section 123 arise. The goods themselves did not suggest that the petitioner was an old smuggler or a dealer in smuggled goods. If there was such information with the customs, they ought to have disclosed it. The goods themselves did not suggest any illicit importation. Nor was there any inscription on the goods which could be the basis of the reasonable belief that the goods were of foreign origin. 17. He further relies on the case law of R. Mahaveer Pipada Vs Commissioner of Customs dated 31.08.2023. In the case of town seizure, the initial burden is always on Revenue to pr....