TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Meitei, belonging to Khurai Thoidingjam Leikai, P.O.: Lamlong, P.S. Porompat, Imphal (East), PIN - 795 010 (Manipur). On examination of the said vehicle, the personnel of the 24th Assam Rifles inter alia found 26 (twenty six) pieces of yellow metal biscuits, believed to be gold of foreign origin, collectively weighing 4326.40 grams from the fuel tank of the said vehicle. On 22.03.2015, the personnel of Assam Rifles handed over Shri Moirangthem Ranjan Meitei along with 26 pieces of yellow metal biscuits and the Tata Indica car to the Customs Officers, Moreh, for further necessary action. 1.1. In his statement dated 22.03.2015, Shri Moirangthem Ranjan Meitei inter alia stated that one Shri Rajesh had engaged him to bring the said 26 piece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 11.01.2016 wherein she inter alia stated that she had met one Ma Win Mar, a Myanmarese lady who deals in gold in Myanmar. It was further stated by the appellant in her statement that she was in need of gold and therefore, had requested Ma Win Mar to arrange twenty six pieces of gold biscuits, for which she was to pay Rs.20,00,000/- in advance. She further stated that Ma Win Mar had sent the said gold without completing the legal process and therefore the same was seized by the personnel of 24th Assam Rifles at Khudengthabi on 21.03.2015. Accordingly, she claimed ownership of the said gold and also submitted that she was ready to pay applicable duties. 2.2. In view of the fresh facts brought on record, the appellant was also called upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the gold is eligible to be released to the appellant on payment of applicable duties, fine and penalty, if any, which they are ready to pay. 5.1. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Show Cause Notice issued in this case is in violation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice was not issued within six months from the date of seizure of the gold; that the seizure in this case was made on 22.03.2015 while the Notice was served to the appellant beyond the period of six months prescribed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, it is contended that the Show Cause Notice is barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel also submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presentative of the Revenue submitted that the gold was seized on 22.03.2015, but Smt. Hanjabam Memtombi Devi (appellant) had not made any claim regarding ownership of the said gold during the course of investigation; it was only on 03.08.2015 that she claimed ownership of the said gold. He points out that even during that time, the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim for ownership. Accordingly, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue prayed that the appellant's claim for ownership be rejected and the impugned order, confiscating the gold and imposing penalty on the appellant, be upheld. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. In this case, it is a fact on record that the go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. However, we observe that this claim of the appellant is not supported by any documentary evidence. Smt. Hanjabam Memtombi Devi has merely submitted that she had intended to bring the gold and had requested Ma Win Mar of Myanmar to arrange the 26 pieces of gold biscuits for her. She could not submit any documentary evidence regarding the payment made for purchase of the said gold. In these circumstances, we hold that the claim made by the appellant is not supported by any documentary evidence and hence, we reject her claim on the ownership of the gold. 9.1. We have examined the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of T. Elavarasan v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai &ors. in Writ Petition No 1421 of 2011 & M.P.....