9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this appeal, which has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal, the appellant has contested the confiscation of the goods (one gold bar) and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that on 24-4-1995, residential-cum-business premises of the appellant at Jodhpur was raided by the Customs Officers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment has rather admitted that he did not go inside the premises. The appellant is alleged to had run away from the spot, but no material has been brought on record to substantite this fact. Rather, Shri Rajesh Jain, Inspector, who was one of the members of the raiding party has stated that the gold bar was handed over by the appellant himself to Shri R.P. Meena. From the record, it is further evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained from Shri Shiv Ratan Soni, Goldsmith, who on visual examination disclosed that it was 24 carats gold bar, but when sample was sent to Bombay mint for examination, it was not so found. Rather the bar was found to be of 23 carats. 3. Therefore, neither the confiscation of the gold bar could be ordered nor any penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act could be imposed on the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
