Page 154 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

376 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Radhika Jewellery, Imphal has stated that they sell only gold of 22 carats. All the-
se discrepancies would establish that the bills cannot be relied and that appellant
has not purchased gold from the alleged sellers. Appellants have not been able to
explain the possession of gold in their hands. The entire facts as brought out
would show that appellants have not been able to prove that the gold was not
smuggled goods.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The appellants are aggrieved by the confiscation of gold which was
initiated on the interception of Shri S. Ramki and Shri P. Dilli Raja at the
Korrukupet railway station. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that
only Mr. Ramki was travelling in train and that the allegation that both Mr. Dilli
Raja and Mr. Ramki were intercepted by the police together is a case made up by
the department and is incorrect. The records right from the seizure upto the in-
vestigation allege that both Ramki and Dilli Raja were intercepted at the railway
station. The case was first detected by police and then handed over to Customs
department. The properties seized were also handed over by police to Customs
authorities. As per records four bars of gold biscuits, two white powder coated
gold bangles and one blue color jeans were received by Customs from the In-
spector of Police. After investigations SCN was issued by Customs authorities in
which it is however alleged that two gold bars and one of crude bangle was con-
cealed in the jeans pant of Shri Ramki and 2 gold bars and one crude gold bangle
was concealed in the pants of Dilli Raja. Thus though in the SCN it is alleged that
both Shri Dilli Raja and Shri Ramki were each carrying gold in the pants worn by
them only one pant was seized along the gold by police and handed over to Cus-
toms. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the first round of litigation has observed
that the seizure of one pant only does not fit into the narration of recovery and
seizure given in the SCN issued by Customs department.
7. This apart it is the consistent case of appellants that they purchased
the gold from Imphal. The bills also show that gold was purchased from Imphal.
Shri V. Ramachandran is a permanent resident of Imphal and possess Voters ID
issued from Imphal. All the three appellants are of the same family. Shri S.
Ramki is sister’s son of Shri Dilli Raja, and Shri Dilli Raja is the son-in-law of Shri
V. Ramachandran. It is their case that the gold was meant to be given as stridhan
for daughter of Shri V. Ramachandran.
8. The main dispute is with regard to the bills produced by the appel-
lants. In the first round of litigation, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order
dated 28-9-2017 has considered in detail the acceptability of these bills as evi-
dence. In paras 11-13, Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the said aspect,
which is noted below for better appreciation :
“11. The reproduction of the originals and the book copy in para 39 of the
impugned order gives the impression that the bill is same except the name
of the buyer in the original bill is mentioned as “Mr. Ramachandran Moreh
- Manipur”, whereas in the book copy is mentioned as V. Ramachandran
Moreh. Had these bills been created subsequently, the person would have
taken care to see that the carbon copy of the Bill remained identical to the
original bill. For minor discrepancy in the name in the bill, the
gold/jewellery shop owner has explained that at the time of sale of gold the
customer requested not to fill the name of the customer in the bill, further,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  154