Page 157 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] S. RAMKI v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-III 379

case files have immediately been transferred to the Economic Offences Court at
Egmore. Thus it can be reasonably inferred that the seal seen on the main bail
application is the impression of the seal by the Egmore Court when the case file
was received by the said Court. Since the seal of issuing certified copy is present
on this document I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the appellants were in possession of the bills dated 18-2-
2014, 19-2-2014 and 22-2-2014 at the time of filing the bail application itself.
13. Now, let us examine the controversy with regard to minor discrep-
ancy alleged by department to the bills. At the foremost, it has to be stated that
on the basis of bills produced by the appellants, the department had conducted
investigation with the sellers namely, M/s. Rashid Jewellery and M/s. Radhika
Jewellery at Imphal. Both the sellers admitted that they have sold the gold to the
appellants herein. They have also furnished the account book kept with them in
which it is mentioned that the gold described in the Bills was sold to the appel-
lant. The department alleges there is some discrepancy between the bills and the
carbon copy kept with the seller. In page 51 of the order passed by the original
authority dated 18-7-2018, the scanned copy of said original and the carbon copy
of bills of the seller have been extracted for making comparison. On bare perusal
of both, it can be seen that both are of the same hand writing. The only discrep-
ancy noted by the department, is that in the one bill No. 366, the purchaser is
shown as Mr. Ramachandran, Moreh, Manipur whereas in the carbon copy kept by
the seller, the name is written as V. Ramachandran, Moreh. There is no discrepancy
or difference with regard to the description of gold. In para 11 of the earlier order
by Commissioner (Appeals) he has discussed this aspect. The sellers have given
statements admitting sale of gold vide such bills to the appellants. The books of
account kept by the sellers in their ordinary course of business also reflects the
transaction. Except for slight difference in the name mentioned in one bill there is
no serious discrepancy.
14. From the discussions made above, I do not find anything to suspect
that the bills were created at a later stage. The findings made by Commissioner
(Appeals) vide order dated 28-9-2017 ought not to have been interfered by the
LAA. The original authority ought to have confined to the direction given by
Commissioner (Appeals) to verify whether the certified copy of the bail applica-
tion contained the details of bills. There is mention of the bills with their dates.
Hence the doubt of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the possibility of the bills
being created later is eliminated. I agree with the discussions made by Commis-
sioner (Appeals) in his order dated 28-9-2017 with regard to the acceptance of the
bills as evidence for purchase of gold by appellants. The appellants have suffi-
ciently discharged the onus to establish the possession of gold. The department
cannot proceed to confiscate on assumptions and presumptions. The impugned
order is set aside. Appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Order pronounced in open Court on 15-11-2019)

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  157