9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar Bansal-Director of the Bilasa & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and on Bilasa & Sons Pvt. Ltd, Delhi and on Pawan Kumar Bansal-proprietor of Supreme Gold, Delhi and on M/s Supreme Gold, Delhi was dropped. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant AIMR Jewels Private Ltd. is a private limited company having its registered office at Kinari Bazar, Agra and a branch office at Chandani Chawk, Delhi. Appellant was engaged in the trade of Gold-Silver Ornaments and Bullion and is registered under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act and is also allotted state of U.P. holding Tax Identification No.09300114994. The Delhi branch of the appellant is also registered under the provisions of Delhi Sales Tax Act as well as under Central Sales Tax Act, at Delhi. They are also registered with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and holding I.E.C. No.0613007689 dated 19/12/2013 (effective rate). The appellant is also registered with the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Jewellery Complex, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, holding Customs Registration dated 19/06/2014. 3. In routine course of its business activity the Delhi bran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Signature of the driver was taken is alleged on a blank plain paper on which the alleged statement of Shri Ajay Kumar was written. The Assistant Commissioner In-charge Commercial Taxes Mobiles Squad Unit, Ghaziabad also issued detention memo with respect to the said gold bars. On the same day in the evening hours Shri Anil Kumar authorized representative of the appellant came to the office of Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax) at Ghaziabad and he reiterated the facts stated by the driver as to the forgetting of form 38 road permit at the Delhi office and produced the said road permit before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ghaziabad. But the commercial tax authority refused to acknowledge the same as they had already detained the gold in question. A show cause notice was served by the Sales authority at about 9 PM on the same date that is 11/07/2014. As the said event was highlighted in the newspapers, officers of Customs division Bareilly approached the office of the Assistant Commissioner commercial taxes at Ghaziabad on 15/07/2014 and requested for handing over of the said detained gold to the Customs. The Customs authority informed the Sales authority tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 15/0014 dated 11th July, 2014 and 02 KG gold (two bars of one KG each) vide tax invoice dated 11/07/2014 from the same firm. Mr. Swadesh Verma further stated that he asked M/s Bilasa & Sons for the evidence of import of the gold seized by the Sales Tax authority and subsequently by the Customs. He came to know that M/s Bilasa & Sons had purchased gold from Supreme gold vide invoice No. 54/GLD/2014 15/031 dated 07/07/2014. Further M/s Supreme gold had purchased gold from M/s HHEC and produced copy of the stock register and Challan. The recovered 12 KG gold was a part of 300 KGs gold imported by M/s HHEC from M/s I.N.T.L. Commodity, Dubai, UAE vide invoice No. INTL/HHEC/DEL/GL/003 2014 dated 25/06/2014 and produced copies of insurance certificate, bill of entry for ex-Bond clearance, airway bill dated 24th June, 2014. Further, in response to summons M/s Bilasa & Sons Pvt. Ltd, Delhi, the director Mr. Vijay Kumar Bansal appeared before the Customs authority and a statement was recorded under Section 108 on 01/8/2014, wherein he stated that they are registered with the Sales Tax Department, their firms sold 02 KG of gold bar and also the 10 KG of gold bar vide the invoice numbers as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06/2014. They received ex-Bond, bill of entry bearing S. No.0004700 of 60 KG gold on 26th June, 2014 and S.No.000 4901 of 180 KG of gold on 27.06.2014. They delivered the goods to clients of HHEC Ltd. as per instructions of the authorised signatory of M/s HHEC Ltd. They pick the consignment on door basis and inform consignee on Customs clearance/deposit in their vault. He also submitted copies of the documents namely shipping documents like invoice, bill of entry, packing list and interest certificate, bill of entry or warehouse, gate pass, ex-Bond bill of entry, copy of delivery order issued by HHEC Ltd in favour of Supreme gold etc. On further enquiry from Shri Ujjal Datta, Chief Finance Manager of the Handicraft and Handloom Export Corporation of India Ltd they replied by their letter dated 04/08/2014 and acknowledged the following documents: (i) copy of Bill of Entry for Warehouse dated 25th June, 2014, (ii) Copy of airway bill, Invoice, Packing list etc, (iii) Bond serial No. 4901 dated 27th June, 14, (iv) copy of Tax Invoice, Certificate dated 04th August, 2014 issued by Suppliers M/s INTL Commodities DMCC regarding Brands of Gold Bars. It further appeared to revenue fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld Bars made through the aforementioned delivery Challan dated 07th July, 15, the said invoices also carry mention of suppliers Invoice No.INTLOGL-03 2014. This invoice number is same as with the invoice associated with bill of Entry No.591 3058 dated 25/06/2014. Further, as per M/s HHEC Ltd, the said gold bars supplied to Supreme Gold under the two invoices imported from Dubai and their country of origin was UAE. Further, as regards transaction between Supreme Gold and M/s Bilasa & Sons Pvt. Ltd vide invoice No.ASG/GLD/2014 15/031 dated 07/07/2014. Further, it was contended by learned Counsel that 16 KG gold for which payment is received by Supreme Gold through banking channel. Further, the director of Bilasa & Sons Pvt. Ltd in his statement accepted purchase of 16 KG Gold bars from Supreme Gold Pvt. Ltd. and further informed that Bilasa & Sons sold 02 KG of Gold bar vide invoice dated 11th July, 2014 and 10 KG Gold bars vide Invoice dated 07/07/2014 to the appellant. Learned Commissioner found that the 10+12 gold bars were sold to the appellant by Bilasa & Sons, where from the consignment of 16 KG of gold bars received from Supreme Gold. The authenticity of payments is also estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gold to the appellant. The learned Counsel of appellant also relied on a Division Bench Ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Rajesh K. Bhansali Vs Collector of Customs reported at 1988 (38) E.L.T. 208, wherein the facts were, vide Punchnama to mention that the diamonds in question (recorded as semiprecious stones) and other documents were seized by the Customs officers under Section 105 of the Act. This Tribunal held that from the Collectors finding, it is seen that Shri Farooq, the appellant mentioned the name of two brokers immediately in his first statement, from whom he had acquired the diamonds, which facts are repeated in the second statement. However, it could not produce all these brokers immediately before the Customs officers, but did so later. But for this reason held, it is not proper for the Collector to draw an adverse inference. The collector has not disputed the fact that Shri Farooq was ill during the interval and was hospitalized. As such the delay on his part was not intentional. He has taken the earliest opportunity of approaching the Customs officers and producing the two brokers before them and explains the source of acquisition of diamonds. The Customs of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
