9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants and Shri K.M. Patwari, ld DR for the Department. 3. The Departmental officers on the basis of information received by them searched the business premises of one Shri Jaferbhai Daginawala at Surat on 5-4-91. In the course of the search a bag containing 10 gold bars was recovered from the right side pocket of the jeans worn by the present appellant Shri J.H. Tinwala, an employee of Jaferbhai Daginawala. It is stated that Shri Tinwala also tried to run away from the scene. Shri Tinwala disclaimed the ownership of the said 10 gold bars and stated that it belonged to his employer, Shri Jaferbhai Daginawala who was present at the time of recovery. Shri Daginawala also confirmed the version of Shri Tinwala. Neither of them could ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticees including Shri J.H. Tinwala, the present appellant. Ld. counsel for the appellant has argued that the 75 guineas of gold had come in the possession of the appellant from his father in succession. He had kept the said guineas in the safe custody of the daughter of Shri Narbheram K. Gajjar as she was personally known to him. According to the appellants, the statement given by Smt. Ramilaben J. Bhagat, daughter of Shri Narbheram admitting to the smuggling of the gold by the appellant was a story prepared by the officers themselves and they had obtained the signatures of Smt. Ramilaben J. Bhagat exploiting her ignorance of law. As regards the allegations about recovery of gold bars from his person on the date of search by Shri Daginawa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as abated since Shri Daganiwala had expired. Therefore, he pleaded for setting aside of the confiscation of 75 gold guineas of foreign origin claimed by the present appellant Shri Tinwala and the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on him. 5. Ld. DR opposing the contentions of the appellant submits that the gold coins/guineas of foreign origin had been recovered from the person of the present appellant and it was also not in dispute that the appellant was an employee of Shri Daginawala, a gold dealer, though both Shri Daginawala and Shri Tinwala had disputed the fact that the gold bars were recovered from the business premises of Shri Daginawala. Shri Tinwala had in his first statement admitted that 10 gold bars belonged to Shri Daginawala a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support inheritence claimed by the appellant will not make the possession thereof illegal and the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d). The Tribunal has in the case of Sheelaben R. Kothari (supra) has given the benefit of doubt to the assessee in such cases. Since the facts in this case are quite similar to the facts of the said case, I am of the view that benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of confiscation of 75 gold guineas and allow the claim of the appellant for their return. 7. As regards penalty, the Assistant Commissioner had imposed a penalty on the appellant on the ground that he had dealt with the 75 gold guineas in a manner contrary to law. Since I h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
