9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1190 - AT - CustomsAbsolute confiscation of 211.07 gms of gold - imposition of penalty u/s 112 (a) and (b) of CA - domestic transportation of foreign marked Gold Bars without proper documents - onus to prove - HELD THAT - The appellant have led cogent evidence that they are jewellers dealing in gold and gold jewellery having their shop under the name of M/s Padmavati Jewellers at Vijayawada. Appellant have also led evidence that in the ordinary use of business they regularly purchase gold from the reputed sellers like M/s DP Gold Pvt Ltd. and M/s SVBC Gold etc. In support of their contentions the appellant have led evidence being extract of their stock register summary of gold dealings showing quantum and value for the financial year 2020-21 and also a copy of ledger account of M/s DP Gold and M/s SVBC Gold for the financial year 2020-21 wherein appellant have got regular purchases from these concerns and they have been making payments through the banking channel - Appellant have also led evidences being screen shots of summary of the invoice of the purchase by them which are reflected on GSTN portal for few months in support of their regular business transactions wherein they purchase gold upon proper GST invoices. The cogent evidences led by the appellant have not been found untrue. Thus the appellant have discharged the onus under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Further the Court below have rejected the cogent explanation given arbitrarily based on assumptions and presumptions having no legs to stand. The appellant shall be entitled to return of the seized gold and if the same have been disposed of shall be entitled for refund of the auction proceeds along with interest as per rules - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of gold u/s 111(d), 111(i), and 111(j) of the Customs Act. 2. Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. Summary: Issue 1: Confiscation of Gold u/s 111(d), 111(i), and 111(j) of the Customs Act The appellant, a jeweller and proprietor of M/s Padmavati Jewellers, faced absolute confiscation of 211.07 grams of gold valued at Rs. 10,70,547/- u/s 111(d), 111(i), and 111(j) of the Customs Act. The Air Intelligence Unit intercepted a consignment containing foreign marked gold bars without proper documents. Upon verification, the officers found foreign marked gold bars and other items in packages sent by M/s VBS Parcel, Hyderabad. The gold was certified as 24-carat foreign origin by a government-approved assayer. The appellant failed to produce satisfactory documents regarding the procurement of the foreign marked gold, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice and subsequent confiscation order. Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty u/s 112(a) and (b) of the Customs ActA penalty of Rs. 2,14,000/- was imposed on the appellant u/s 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. The appellant contended that the seized gold was purchased under proper invoices and was not of foreign origin. The appellant provided evidence of purchasing gold from reputed dealers and sending it for job work. However, the respondent rejected the appellant's explanation, leading to the imposition of the penalty. Appellant's Arguments and Tribunal's FindingsThe appellant argued that they regularly purchase gold from authorized dealers and provided invoices and job work challans as evidence. The appellant also presented stock registers, ledger accounts, and GSTN portal summaries to support their claim. The Tribunal found that the appellant had led cogent evidence and discharged the onus u/s 123 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had arbitrarily rejected the appellant's explanation based on assumptions and presumptions. ConclusionThe Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The appellant was entitled to the return of the seized gold or refund of the auction proceeds along with interest as per rules. Order PronouncedAppeal allowed on 27.03.2024.
|
