Page 153 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] S. RAMKI v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-III 375

sioner (Appeals). Thus de novo order passed by the original authority dated 18-7-
2018 itself is erroneous. The original authority ought to have restricted to merely
comparing the bills produced by the appellants with the certified copy of the bail
application so as to confirm whether the bills were produced at the stage of bail
application itself, as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Instead, the entire
matter has been re-adjudicated by the original authority and order passed
against the findings made by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Counsel
submitted that the original bills are with the appellant and is always willing and
ready to furnish the same.
1 3.3 He therefore prayed that the order passed by the Commissioner
(Appeals) may be set aside.
4.1 Ld. A.R. Shri B. Balamurugan appeared and argued on behalf of the
department.
4.2 With regard to the facts, he submitted that the contentions raised by
the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that, only Mr. S. Ramki was intercepted at the
railway station and Mr. P. Dilli Raja was not present at the time of arrest is incor-
rect and that it is made only to suit the case of the appellant. He adverted to the
findings made by the original authority in the de novo order dated 18-7-2018 and
submitted that the original authority has confined himself to the directions made
by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has not acted beyond the scope of remand.
After enquiry, the original authority held that the original bills were not pro-
duced by the appellants before him or before the Magistrate Court while filing
the bail application. To support this argument, Ld. A.R. adverted to the copy of
the bail application attached to the written submissions filed by the Counsel for
appellant. It is submitted by Ld. A.R. that though the bail application is filed be-
fore the Magistrate Court George Town, Chennai on 20-3-2014, impression of the
seal affixed on the bail application is that of Economic Offences Court at Egmore,
Chennai-600 008. This itself would show that the bail application produced by
them is a false one. Apart from this bail application, there is no other evidence to
show that the appellants had furnished the bills at the time of applying for bail.
4.3 With regard to the discrepancies noted in the original bill and the
carbon copy maintained in the books of account of the seller, Ld. A.R. stressed
that the name mentioned in the original bill is Mr. V. Ramachandran, Moreh,
Manipur whereas in the carbon copy maintained by the seller, it is written as V.
Ramachandran only. If the bill is issued by the seller, then the carbon copy of it
ought to have been exactly same. The difference between the original and the
carbon copy would establish that the bill is a fabricated one and the appellant has
not purchased gold from the said sellers.
4.4 Further, the statement of one of the seller, Proprietor of Rashid Jew-
ellery, Imphal is that the gold sold to appellant was purchased by him from the
local market. On testing the purity of the gold, it is seen that the gold is of 24 car-
ats with foreign markings. Such gold of 24 carats with foreign markings would
not be available in any local market. Thus the statement of the seller M/s. Rashid
Jewellery, Imphal that he has purchased it from the local market is unbelievable.
Appellants were also found in possession of two numbers of crude gold bangles.
On testing the purity of these bangles it was 24 carats whereas the seller M/s.
________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  153