9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been directed against the common impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the confiscation of the seized gold bars and pieces and also the imposition of penalties on the appellants as detailed therein. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the records. 3. On Pankaj Kumar, penalty of rupees 50,000/- has been confirmed while on Jayanti Lal of rupe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was Vinod Kumar. 4. From the record, it is also evident that the seizure of the gold bars, was initially made by the Income-tax authorities by carrying out the survey of the premises of M/s. Vardhaman Abhushan, Udaipur on 12-1-1999. But Pankaj Kumar, appellant, produced a fax copy of the bill no. 711, dated 11-9-1999 vide which the seized gold bars were purchased from the manager of the firm, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naments. But Mukesh Kumar, himself in his statements, one recorded on 22-2-1999 and another on 23-2-1999, admitted of having delivered 10 gold bars to Jayanti Lal, for preparation of ornaments. It is only in the third statement recorded on 24-9-1999, he allegedly denied this fact, but that statement was recorded when he was in the custody of the Customs Office. He was never produced for cross-exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ornaments, from the goldsmith. 6. In the light of discussion made, above, the impugned order regarding confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants, as detailed therein, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief as per law. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
