TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 338/2019/759 dated 02.03.2019 13/2021-22 dated 27.10.2021 Rs. One lakh Rs.9,34,000/- C/51470/2022 Sandeep Sehgal 338/2019/759 dated 02.03.2019 13/2021-22 dated 27.10.2021 Rs. One lakh Rs,3,10,000/- 2. The facts in brief, which have given rise to the present adjudication are as follows : 2.1 The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence DRI got an information about huge quantity of foreign origin smuggled gold to have been received at shop on 2nd floor of 34/3128 Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh. The officers reached the said premises along with two witnesses and with the search warrants. Rahul Kapoor the owner of the said shop was found available. During search Indian currency of total value of INR 1,90,000/- along with four yellow coloured metal bars weighing 1 Kg. each, 11 numbers of cut pieces of yellow metal, 150 gm bar of yellow metal all bearing description "Perth Mint Australia" were recovered from the said shop. Rahul Kapoor could not produce any document for the licit possession of the said yellow metal and the said cash. Meanwhile all the four of the above named appellants were found coming inside the shop. They all identified themselves as jewellers based i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants are before this tribunal. 3. I have heard learned counsels for the appellant and learned Authorized Representative for Revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the statements of all the appellants were recorded and their deposition is wrongly alleged to be an admission for conspiring with Rahul Kapoor in the act smuggling of gold. It is impressed upon that they are small scale jewellers in state of Haryana and with a view of cost cutting, while preparing jewellery for their customers, that they started purchasing gold from Rahul Kapoor four months prior the date of impugned seizure as his gold rate was comparatively cheaper though by minor difference. However, they had no knowledge about involvement of Rahul Kapoor in such illegal activities. The penalty on four of the appellants is, therefore, alleged to have wrongly been imposed. Same is prayed to be set aside. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions : (i) Samir Saha Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Shillong 2020 (371) ELT 189 (Meghalaya High Court); (ii) Ratan Kumar Saha Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Patna 2021 (375) RLT 435 (Tri.-Kolkata); (iii) Gopal Chandra Shil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in original based whereupon the penalty has been imposed upon the appellants and their currency has been seized is para 59.2 of the order in original. It reads as follows: " I find that the principal allegation against Noticees is that Shri Rahul Kapoor along with Shri Vijay Kapoor @ Anil Kapoor and Shri Monu Kapoor entered into a criminal conspiracy with Tilak Raj @ Pankaj Dhingra to buy and sell smuggled gold of foreign origin. Said Shri Rahul Kapoor neither produced any document(s) in support of licit import and possession of the seized yellow colour metal bars & cut pieces of gold collectively weighing 35175.8l grams at the time of seizure nor at the time of investigation. The onus to prove that the seized gold was not smuggled lies on said Shri Rahul Kapoor." It is submitted that appellants are small jewellary shop owners in Panipat, and they used to come to Delhi to purchase gold from various shop keepers in Karol Bagh. This time also they came to purchase the gold from Rahul Kapoor who has shop in Beadonpura, and it is during search in the shop, by the DRI officers, that the currency carried by the appellants was seized by the officers. " 7. From these observations, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sehgal, Shri Sunil Sehgal, Shri Sandeep Sehgal, Shri Sushil Kumar and Shri Vishnu Soni was brought by all of them with the sole intention & for the purpose of buying the foreign origin smuggled gold and liable to confiscation & was rightly seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, I find that said Shri Rajesh Sehgal, Shri Sunil Sehgal, Shri Sandeep Sehgal, Shri Sushil Kumar and Shri Vishnu Soni, used to buy smuggled gold on routine basis from Shri Rahul Kapoor and started purchasing gold from Rahul Kapoor because Rahul Kapoor sells gold, on a little less price from market, which evidences that all of them have the knowledge that the gold they came to buy without any invoice was not legally procured by Shri Rahul Kapoor." 9. The perusal makes it clear that the adjudicating authority has wrongly formed an opinion that the appellants had already bought gold from Rajesh Sehgal it is coming apparent from the record also from the Panchnama that the appellant entered the shop of Rajesh Sehgal when DRI officers had already started searching the premises. The Indian currency was recovered from the appellants which they had brought along with them from Panipat to purchase....