9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against order confirming confiscation of seized gold bars and imposition of penalties. Analysis: The judgment pertains to appeals challenging an order-in-appeal confirming the confiscation of seized gold bars and imposition of penalties on the appellants. The penalties imposed on different individuals were detailed, with amounts ranging from rupees 5,000 to rupees 50,000. The penalties were confirmed due to the seizure of gold bars and pieces of foreign origin from the business premises of a specific concern. The penalties on the appellants were upheld as they were involved in the smuggling of the seized goods. The judgment highlighted the roles of various individuals, including the appellants and other associated parties, in the possession and transfer of the gold bars. The judgment discussed the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the gold bars, initially made by the Income-tax authorities during a survey. It was noted that one of the appellants produced a bill indicating the purchase of the seized gold bars from another firm, which was confirmed by the proprietor of that firm. The authenticity of the bill and the lawful acquisition of the gold bars by the concerned firm were established based on the evidence presented. The Revenue's contention regarding the bill's relevance to the seized gold bars was dismissed, given the admission by the selling firm's proprietor. Regarding another appellant penalized for possessing gold bars of foreign origin, the judgment analyzed statements made by individuals involved in the transfer of the gold bars. Despite initial denials by one individual, subsequent statements and evidence supported the lawful possession and transfer of the gold bars for the preparation of ornaments. The genuineness of the evidence presented regarding the import of the gold bars was not in question, further establishing the lawful possession of the gold bars by the appellant for ornament preparation. In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned order confirming the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants. The decision was based on the detailed analysis of the circumstances, evidence presented, and the lawful acquisition and possession of the seized gold bars. The appeals of the appellants were allowed, providing them with consequential relief as per the law. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, emphasizing the legal resolution of the issues raised in the appeals.
|
