9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d gold on arrival from Bangkok or how they procured gold before they were intercepted at Mugalsarai Railway Station. The individual appellants are not in a position to explain how they procured such quantity of gold. Further, they do not have any document to establish licit acquisition of the same. I, therefore, do not interfere with the order of confiscation of impugned gold and imposition of penalty. However, I find that this Tribunal in the above stated case of Shri Sanjeeb Kumar @ Pappu Kumar and others have held that margin of profit in trade of gold is very less. Appeal allowed in part. - C/Stay/70518 & 70517/2018 In APPEAL Nos. C/71388 & 71389/2018 With C/71403-71405/2018-CU[SM] - FINAL ORDER NOs- 70261-70265/2019 - Dated:- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated two appellants traveled to Mughalsarai Railway junction and board Sanghmitra Express for Nagpur. The appellant Shri Murli Asandas Chandiramani was alleged to help the other two appellants in alleged smuggling of the impugned gold. Therefore, impugned gold was confiscated and above stated three appellants were imposed with penalties through Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2015. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Commissioner (Appeals) took into consideration the provisions of Section 125 of Customs, Act, 1962, ruling by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Airport, Mumbai Vs Alfred Menezes reported at 2009 (242) ELT 334 (Bom.), decision of this Tribunal in the case of Yakub Ibrahim Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Murli Asandas Chandiramani the contention in the appeal is that the penalty on him was not at all called for. 5. Heard both the sides. Revenue has also filed stay applications, requesting for stay of operation of order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) order. They were also taken up together with the main appeals. Both the sides were allowed to submit written submissions. 6. Written submissions were submitted on behalf of Shri Rajesh Jhamatmal Bhat, Shri Rajesh Chetandas Vaswani and Shri Murli Asandas Chandiramani by learned Counsel Shri Kartikeya Narain. It was stated in the said submission that Shri Rajesh Chetandas Vaswani and Shri Rajesh Jhamatmal Bhat had come out from Gaya International Airport the day before arrest but it did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 as amended. Revenue further placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal reported at 2006 (204) ELT 300 (Tri.-Mumbai) and ruling by Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Abdul Razak Vs Union of India reported at 2012 (275) ELT 300 (Ker.). 8. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions made by both the sides, I understand from the fact of the case as recorded by learned Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned order that two of the appellants in the present matter brought impugned gold from Bangkok to Gaya International Airport without declaring the same to Customs authorities. I cannot find from the whole proceedings as to how the Customs authorities pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
