TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi in a train were intercepted at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi by officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] and a notice under section 102 of the Customs Act was issued to them for search of their luggage. They were then taken for a physical search at the DRI Head Quarters at New Delhi. Thereafter, their statements were recorded at the DRI Office under section 108 of the Customs Act. The search of Manish Kumar and his baggage resulted in recovery and seizure of 7 gold bars, collectively weighing 7000gm, from a blue colour trolley bag which contained a purple colour trolley bag and a black colour bag. Rs. 1,17,590/- of Indian currency was also recovered and seized. Similarly, the search of Naresh Kumar and his baggage resulted in recovery and seizure of 5 gold bars, collectively weighing 5000 gm from a blue colour trolley bag, which contained a brown colour trolley bag and a black colour bag. Rs. 1,19,820/- of Indian currency was also recovered from him and seized. 4. On 20.01.2023, Manish Kumar and Naresh Kumar were arrested by the DRI and remanded to judicial custody. 5. On 30.01.2023, Manish Kumar and Naresh Kumar, while in judicial cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....naming his brother Mukesh Soni as the inheritor of his properties and also specifically providing that the 12 gold bars from the stock of his firm M/s. B.S. Brothers and Industries, Jaipur as on 15.11.2022 along with cash amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- be given to Rinkesh Kumar alias Prem Singh, resident of 32, Strotten Muthia Mudali Street, 5th Floor Chennai - 600079; (iii) Mahesh Soni died on 01.12.2022; and (iv) It was in this context that Rinkesh Kumar alias Prem Singh had called Manish Kumar and Naresh Kumar at Chennai to deliver the 12 gold bars and the cash amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- to the appellant. He had also given Manish Kumar and Naresh Kumar a letter dated 17.01.2023 along with a job-work issue order dated 02.11.2022, which was present in the envelope. In the said letter dated 17.01.2023, Rinkesh Kumar alias Prem Singh had clearly stated that Mahesh Soni had told him subsequently not to make any jewellery out of the 12 gold given to him and, therefore, he was returning the same along with a cash amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-. 11. Both Manish Kumar and Naresh Kumar in the replies to the show cause notice reiterated the ownership of the appellant of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.06.2023. According to his retraction, Sh. Manish Kumar stated that he alongwith Sh. Naresh Kumar had visited one Chennai based trader named Sh. Prem Singh who asked them to deliver some legally procured gold to certain Delhi based gold traders for getting gold jewellary made according to his design. They were paid Rs. 2,40,000/- for the said work. However, in contrast to the said submission in his retraction Sh. Manish Kumar in his letter dated 21.06.2023 has stated that Sh. Prem Singh had called him and Sh. Naresh Kumar to deliver gold bars of 12 Kg. and a cash amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- alongwith a letter dated 17.01.2023 to Sh. Mukesh Kumar Soni in which it was clearly mentioned that Sh. Mahesh Soni had told him not to have any jewellary made out of those gold bars and therefore, he was returning the gold bars alongwith the cash amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The said fact has been reiterated by Sh. Mukesh Kumar Soni in his letter dated 03.08.2023 that the said gold bars were to be delivered to him in Jaipur, however, the two were intercepted while they alighted from a train at Delhi. The repeated change of stance in the matter clearly establishes an afterthought instigated at the be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd arbitrary as the Commissioner erred in disregarding the valid documents submitted by the appellant without adducing any evidence to refute the same; (vii) The Commissioner erred in raising doubt on the authenticity of the will of late Mahesh Soni without any evidence or reasoning; (viii) Seizure and absolute confiscation of 12 kgs gold bars of foreign origin based on the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act is illegal and unsustainable as the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed; and (ix) Absolute confiscation of Rs. 1,17,590/- seized from Manish Kumar and Rs. 1,19,820/- from Naresh Kumar under section 121 of the Customs Act, is illegal and against the settled principles of law. 15. Shri Gurdeep Singh, learned special counsel appearing by the respondent for the department and Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorised representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and made the following submissions. 16. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned special counsel appearing for the department have been considered. 17.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the 12 gold bars, the appellant cannot claim that confiscation of the 12 gold bars and Rs. 2,40,000/- is bad in law. 23. Penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant under section 114AA of the Customs Act for the reason that the appellant had made an attempt to claim ownership of the seized 12 smuggled gold bars on the basis of forged documents. 24. Section 114AA of the Customs Act is reproduced below: "114AA. Penalty for use of false and incorrect material If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods." 25. Learned counsel for the appellant not only submitted that penalty should not be imposed upon the appellant but also submitted that the penalty that has been imposed is exhorbitant. 26. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that penalty should not have been imposed cannot be accepted. It has been found as a fact that the appellan....