TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner] in which the PA systems and parts seized by panchnamas dated 5.1.2010 collectively valued at Rs. 77,16,288/- were confiscated under sections 111 (a),(b), (d) and (l) of the Customs Act, 1962 [Act] but were allowed to be redeemed by Elgin on paying a fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- under section 125 of the Act and penalties of Rs.2,00,000/- each were imposed on the owner of Elgin Shri Suresh Chand Gupta and the Manager of Elgin Shri Sumit Gupta. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. When the matter was listed on 19.2.2025, Shri Sanjay Singh advocate sought adjournment and it was adjourned to 21.4.2025 making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted. However, on 21.4.2025, none appeared for the appellant. Learned authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als including Shri Suresh Chand Gupta and Shri Sumit Gupta, conducting investigation into the documents submitted by Elgin in support of their claim, a Show Cause Notice was issued. 6. After considering the replies in defence, giving opportunities of personal hearing and allowing cross examination of the individuals, the Commissioner passed the impugned order. He observed that the goods had been seized under the belief that they were imported without paying customs duty and without the cover of valid duty paying documents. To the extent the documents submitted by the appellants in defence correlated to the goods, they were excluded from the SCN. 7. He further observed that the appellants' claim of local procurement from local sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) The department did not produce any evidence of to show that the goods were smuggled. The statements of Shri Sumit Gupta and Shri SC Gupta asserting legal import of goods cannot be brushed aside. (iv) The Revenue did not investigate to check if the statements made during the cross examination were true. (v) The Commissioner did not appreciate that the appellant had denied the goods being smuggled and asserted that the goods were bought and sold paying through cheques. (vi) The impugned order may be set aside and the appeals may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of Revenue 11. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted as follows: (i) The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the extent no documents to show licit import of the goods were produced, the goods were seized and the SCN was issued proposing their confiscation and impostion of penalties. 14. The appellant had submitted purported purchase invoices from three businesses- viz., CINETEKK, Pondicherry, A-One electronics, Delhi and Sun Infonet, Delhi. 15. On verification, CINETEKK existed in Pondicherry but Shri Saravanan of this firm, after verification, confirmed that the purported invoices were never issued by them. He also gave a statement to this effect under section 108 of the Act. The appellant cross-examined Shri Saravanan during adjudication proceedings which also established that the purported invoices were never issued by CINETEKK. 1....