TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exit gate of international arrival hall after he crossed the green channel. The petitioner was carrying one check-in bag and one hand bag. It was inquired whether the petitioner was carrying any gold/contraband/prohibited items or had hidden/left anything intentionally inside the gents toilet located near belt no.13 on the duty free shop side of the airport where the petitioner entered before interception. Initially, the petitioner replied in the negative but subsequently admitted to have hidden two gold bars kept in a black coloured pouch inside the false wall behind the flush assembly of cubical no.3 of the gents toilet (for short 'toilet'). 2.1 The panchas along with the petitioner and the officers of customs searched the toilet and on removal of the upper slab of the false wall behind the flush assembly a black pouch was recovered containing two yellow metal bars bearing the marks "MUS Melter Assayer 1 Kilo Gold 999.9" and "GSR Gulf Gold Refinery 1 Kilo Gold 999.9" each weighing 1000 grams and totalling 2000 grams. 2.2 Under Section 108 of the Act, statements of the petitioner dated 04.02.2019 and 05.02.2019 were recorded. It was stated that the gold belonged to an Afghan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evision had already been decided by the RA on 14.07.2025 and this fact had not been brought to the notice of the court. The order dated 29.07.2025 was recalled and the matter was permitted to be dealt with in accordance with the order passed by the RA. Submissions of the Parties 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 129DD(2) of the Act, the limitation for filing revision is three months from the date of communication of the order and the delay can be condoned for a further period of three months, on sufficient cause being shown. The submission is that the appellate order was dispatched on 22.07.2022 but the revision was filed before the RA on 25.01.2023 i.e. beyond the prescribed period and delay cannot be condoned. Reliance is on the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, (2008) 3 SCC 70 and Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1961 SCC OnLine SC 39. 3.1 The contention is that unlike Section 129B of the Act there is no power vested in the RA under Section 129DD of the Act to remand the matter to the AA and the RA acted beyond jurisdiction in remanding the better. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invoices was not reconciling with the presence of the petitioner on that date in that country. The invoice dated 02.02.2019 was for purchase of gold from Dubai but the petitioner was stated to be in Bangkok on that date. Moreover, the passport number of the petitioner was not mentioned on the invoice. It is submitted that the invoice was produced before the AA and not at the time of interception. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act: "Section 123. Burden of proof in certain cases (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be- (a) in a case where such seizure is made from the possession of any person,- (i) on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; and (ii) if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also on such other person; (b) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alue shall be passed under this section,- (a) in any case in which an order passed under section 128A has enhanced any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or has confiscated goods of greater value, and (b) in any other case, unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given notice to show cause against it within one year from the date of the order sought to be annulled or modified." ANALYSIS 7. The contention that the RA under Section 129DD of the Act has no power to remand the matter as is specifically provided under Section 129B of the Act is noted to be rejected. Section 129DD of the Act empowers the RA to annul or modify the order passed by the appellate authority. The annulment of the order carries an inherent power to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. The language of Section 129DD has no express bar against directing fresh adjudication. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in Umosh Dhaimode (supra): "2. As the order under appeal itself notes, the aforesaid provision vested the appellate authority with powers to pass such order as it deemed fit confirming, modifying or annulling the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of purchase in his name and this was considered by the AA and the FAA while allowing redemption, lacks merit. Section 123 of the Act deals with the burden of proof and applies in case of seizure under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled. The burden is cast upon the person from whom the goods are seized or upon a person claiming to be the owner to prove that the seized goods are not smuggled. 12. In the present case the invoice produced was relied upon as the basis for discharging this onus. However, the invoice itself was found doubtful as the passport number of the petitioner was not mentioned on the invoice and the petitioner was not present in Dubai on the date of purchase. The matter was remanded to the AA to be decided afresh after considering the facts and evidence in accordance with law. There is no factual or legal error in the RA remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. 13. The reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (supra) does not enhance the case of the petitioner. It was held that a finding of fact can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction where it is perverse, based on no evidence,....