TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash Tukaram Karan, of which the appellant claims to be the owner, are as follows: Serial No. Buyer Name Invoice Details Description of the goods Gross weight (grams) 1. M/s. Vikash Chain Jewellery India Ltd. New Delhi GST Invoice no. SG-460 dated 17.01.2023 22CT New gold ornaments 1975.790 2. M/s. Vikash Chain Jewellery India Ltd. New Delhi GST Invoice no. SG-465 dated 18.01.2023 22CT New gold kundan 741.510 3. M/s. Vikash Chain Jewellery India Ltd. New Delhi GST Invoice no. SG-466 dated 18.01.2023 22CT New gold kundan 1427.890 4. M/s. Manish Bhai, New Delhi (prospective buyer) Approval Voucher No. IA-26 dated 12.01.2023 22CT New gold ornaments-approval basis 295.650 Total 2,17,83,707/- 4440.840 grams 3. It transpires from the records that on 19.01.2023 Subhash Tukaram Karan, an employee of the appellant, who was travelling from Mumbai to New Delhi by train was intercepted by DRI Officials at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station. The DRI Officers issued a notice to him under section 102 of the Customs Act for search of his baggage. Subsequently he and Sanjay Ram, who had come to pick him, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also required to send gold jewellery/gold ornaments on approval basis to Manish in New Delhi. Manish was to approve the said jewellery and the final invoices were to be made subsequently; (v) The gold jewellery/gold ornaments were handed over by Suraj Dongre, an employee of the appellant, to Bhavik Baldia, an employee of Bharat Shantilal Shah at the office of Bharat Shantilal Shah in Kalpa Devi, Mumbai. Bharat Shantilal Shah had indicated to the appellant that he had an employee who would be travelling to Delhi, and, therefore, in order to ensure safety and delivery of the jewellery ordered by M/s Vikash Vikash Chain Jewellery India Ltd. at Delhi, the consignment was handed over at the Mumbai office of Bharat Shantilal Shah on 18.01.2023 at 02.30pm; and (vi) It came to light that Subhash Tukaram Karan, an employee of Bharat Shantilal Shah, who was carrying the jewellery of the appellant and other jewellery items belonging to Bharat Shantilal Shah by train from Mumbai to Delhi was called for questioning by the DRI on his arrival at the New Delhi Railway Station on 19.01.2023. Further, it came to light that another employee of Bharat Sharat Shantilal Shah, namely S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., also submitted records to establish that the gold jewellery/gold ornaments belonging to the appellant were made from legitimate gold which had been purchased by the appellant through cheque payments and also from gold lying in the stock of the appellant. The appellant also disclosed the purchase invoices of the gold and the ledger accounts. The appellant also supplied details of the transaction between the appellant and M/s. Vikash Chain Jewellery India Limited, which was backed by three GST invoices numbers SG-460 dated 17.01.2023, SG-465 dated 18.01.2023 and SG-466 dated 18.01.2023. The invoices are also reflecting on the GSTN portal. The transaction relating to approval of goods by Manish was also backed by Approval Voucher No. IA-26 dated 12.01.2023. 10. The impugned order, however, confiscates gold jewellery/gold ornaments weighing 20,756.3 gms, including 4440.84 gms belonging to the appellant. 11. The relevant portion of the order relating to the appellant is reproduced below: "149.10 I also find that Invoice no. SG-460 dated 17.01.2023 recovered from Gold Jewellery seized from Sh. Subhash Tukaram Karan for Gold jewellery weighing 1975.79, Grams was issued by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 17.01.2023 used to cover up the other Gold Jewellery is also liable for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962." (emphasis supplied) 12. Shri Pankaj Bhagat and Shri Sadre Alam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions: (i) Out of the total quantity of 20,756.3 gms of gold jewellery/gold ornaments seized, the appellant is the lawful owner and manufacturer of 4440.840 gms of gold ornaments, duly covered by the following documents: (a) Invoice No. SG-460 dated 17.01.2023; (b) Invoice No. SG-465 dated 18.01.2023; (c) Invoice No. SG-466 dated 18.01.2023; and (d) Approval Voucher No. IA-26 dated 12.01.2023; (ii) Despite repeated intimation by the appellant and production of invoices clearly reflecting M/s. Vikas Chain Jewelry India Limited as the buyer, the department neither conducted any enquiry nor sought verification from the said purchaser; (iii) The impugned order does not deal with the reply and documents filed by the appellant and, therefore, deserves to be set aside; (iv) The only allegation noted in the impugned order is that the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat was being supplied to M/s. Vikash Chain Jewellery India Limited that was recovered from the bag of Subhash Tukaram Karan while carrying the said jewellery from Mumbai to Delhi. The appellant has provided details of the three GST invoice numbers SG-460, SG-465 and SG-466 regarding 1975.790 gms, 741.510 grms and 1427.890 gms respectively relating to 4155.19 gms. The remaining 295.650 gms were covered by Approval Voucher No. IA26. The appellant has stated for this jewellery that they were being sent to Manish on approval basis. The appellant has also given details of the gold from which the said jewellery was prepared. The appellant also stated that the invoices were reflected on the GSTN portal. 16. These facts have not been considered by the Commissioner in the impugned order while arriving at a conclusion that the gold jewellery was liable to confiscation under section 119 of the Customs Act. 17. These records were produced by the adjudicating authority and the only reason assigned is that the invoices were raised "to cover up" the full gold jewellery given to Subhash Tukaram Karan. The invoices have not been found to be false nor is there any finding that they were not r....