9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdictional authority was initially of the view that the case pertains to baggage and hence the impugned order was challenged before the Revisionary Authority, Government of India. However, the Revision Authority vide his order No. 40/2018-Cus. dated 13.03.2018 held that the issue does not pertain to baggage and hence outside the purview of Revisionary Authority. Consequently, the Revenue has filed present appeal alongwith the application for condonation of delay. 3. For the reasons cited therein, delay is condoned since such delay has occurred on account of pursuing the appeal before the wrong authority. Appeal is admitted. 4. With the concurrence of both sides the appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 5. With this background, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that other than the statement of the appellant, there is no other evidence to establish that the seized goods were smuggled and that the appellant has brought the goods from Dubai. Accordingly, he submitted that the goods are not liable for confiscation. He also reiterated the stand of the respondent that the said goods were handed over to the passenger at the Delhi Railway Station for handing over to a friend at Mumbai. The purchase bills for the jewellery within India was also submitted to substantiate his case. 8. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that Shri A. M. Khaleefa was intercepted by DRI Officer at Nizamuddin Railway Station, New Delhi. From his possession four packets of gold jewellery was recovered i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant case are that the pax arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi on 01.02.2013 and took a taxi to the railway station on the same day itself in the close proximity. The evidences in the form of railway ticket, flight ticket, etc. certainly indicate that the said pad did travel from Dubai to New Delhi on the said flight on 01.02.2013 and to Railway Station on the same date. However, the said fact per se does not categorically indicate that the pax had actually carried the seized goods from Dubai as allegedly averred by the pax. There is no other evidence to prove the averments made by the pax in any other form. On the contrary, I find that the pax had contested the same by submitting that the said gold jewellery was handed over to him at outside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
