9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hansi that a case had been registered. With the permission of Judicial Magistrate, all the goods were detained under detention memo by the Customs officers on 13-7-2001. Later on, the Customs officers filed a report to the Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate ordered on 27-6-2002 to customs to dispose of the goods as they deem fit in terms of law. Then on 18-7-2002 the Customs officers seized the foreign marking gold biscuits and jewellery under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. A show cause notice dated 7-1-2003 was issued proposing confiscation of seized gold and ornaments and imposition of penalty. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise by order dated 29-10-2004 confiscated the seized goods under Section 111 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 725 (Tri.-Del.). In support of this, the learned Advocate submits that the appellant produced purchase document which has been verified by the officers as duly recorded in the show cause notice and it was found genuine. He contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the documents on frivolous ground that the bill does not bear the name of the buyer and the description of the goods. He submits that in view of the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and Tribunal, the department failed to establish that the goods are of smuggled nature. On the contrary, the appellant produced the document which is genuine and, therefore, seized goods are liable to be returned to the appellant. 3. The learned D.R. reiterates the findings of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintainable. 5. At any event, it is revealed from the adjudication order that the Customs officers verified the bill dated 31-12-99 of M/s. K.K. Bullion. It appears that Shri S.K. Budholia of M/s. K.K. Bullion cannot identify the country of origin of goods from the bill dated 31-12-99. In the case of Tulsi Das Agarwal (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate, no verification of the invoice was made by the Department. But, in the present case, the Department verified the invoice of M/s. K.K. Bullion. So, the case law relied upon by the learned Advocate is not applicable herein. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and is rejected. (Pronounced in open Court on 9-3-2007) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
