The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the show cause notice issued under Customs act confirming confiscation of seized gold is time barred.
The Appellants, M/s DI Gold Designer Jewellery, and M/s Ridhi Sidhi Jewellers herein are engaged in jewellery business. They used to send parcels of gold for job work of jewellery through the known trade practice called āAngariasā and also used to receive the gold/jewellery through the same mode. The Department got information about a consignment booked by Airway Bill of Jet Airways destined to Bombay to might have contained gold bullion of foreign origin which might have been smuggled into India.
The said consignment was put on hold and CELEBI, the custodian of the warehouse, was instructed to not to clear the shipment without the permission of the Custom Department. The said consignment was booked in the name of Shri Onkar Nath Singh. The Custom Officers, in the presence of Shri Onkar Nath Singh brought the consignment from CELEBI warehouse to new Custom House and examined the same in presence of Shri Onkar Nath Singh and two more independent witnesses.
The consignment was found containing two tin boxes collectively weighing 11.8 kgs containing 22 and 18 small parcels respectively. All these parcels were detained for further investigation vide Panchanama dated 11.11.2014. To verify the yellow metal to be gold that the parcels were also got examined by jewellery appraisal on 27/11/2014 who vide the report of the event date verified that the yellow metal and yellow metal jewellery is gold.
The Judicial Member, Rachna Gupta held that Show cause notice under Section 124 of Customs act confirming confiscation of seized gold being issued beyond six months of the date of seizure is held to be barred by limitation. Lack of appropriate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant amounts to violation of natural justice, the findings against them are liable to be set aside on this score as well. The appellants have sufficiently discharged their burden of proof in terms of Section 123 of Custom Act by proving the licit possession of the impugned gold which was delivered for job work through approved mode of the Trade for transfer of Gold and Jewellery. Lastly, the department has failed to show any cogent reason to believe that the goods were the smuggled one.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
