JUDGMENT

M.S.Sanklecha, J. - This Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) challenges the order dated 3rd June, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal).

2. This Appeal was admitted on 28th June, 2007 on the following substantial questions of law:-

"(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) is justified in allowing the Appeal of the Respondents herein and setting aside the order of confiscation of the seized gold, by totally discarding the confessional statements given by the Respondents under the provisions of section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which are in the nature of admissible legal evidence, as clearly mandated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) K. I. Pavunny v/s. The Assistant Collector (HQ) , (1997) 3 SCC 721 and (ii) Naresh J. Sukhwani v/s. Union of India , (1996) SCC(Cri) 76?

(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Respondents have discharged their burden/ onus cast on them in terms of the provisions of section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 to prove and/or establish that the huge quantity of 575 gold bars seized from their custody is not the smuggled one, inspite of the fact that no legal evidence, such as maintenance of any basic Books of Accounts whatsoever, Registration details under the provisions of Sales Tax, Payment of Purchase Price of the gold, Payment of Government Levies, like Income Tax, Sales Tax etc., duly supported by the Annual Returns, etc has been produced/ brought on record by the Respondents?"

3. It may be pointed out that the Revenue has filed only one Appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd June, 2005. This, in fact, when the impugned order is in respect of six Respondents. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the seized gold bars, Indian currency and the Jeep, confiscated by order dated 1st July, 2002 of the Commissioner of Customs. The above Confiscation was set aside by the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2005 of the Tribunal. The Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in this Appeal are employees of Respondent No.1 and on whom penalties are imposed under Section 112 of the Act, which have been deleted by the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2005. In fact, there should have been six different Appeals by the Revenue but only one appeal is filed. At the hearing also, submissions were made by the learned Additional Solicitor General only in respect of Respondent No.1 and no submissions were made in respect of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the context of the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2005. In fact, the questions as admitted are also only in respect of Respondent No.1. This possibly for the reason that the penalties upon Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are consequential upon the impugned order of the Tribunal being reversed in case of Respondent No.1. Thus, in this appeal before us, there is no challenge to the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2005 to the extent it allowed the appeals of Respondent Nos.2 to 6.

4. Briefly, the facts leading to this Appeal, are as under:-

(a) On 8th March, 2000, 575 gold bars valued at Rs.3.09 Crores were found along with Indian Currency of Rs.21 lakhs from a cavity in a jeep, belonging to Respondent No.1. At that time, the jeep was being driven by Mr. Anis Ashraf (Driver of Respondent No.1);

(b) Respondent No.1 and his driver were not able to produce any documents in support of legal possession of the 575 gold bars and Indian currency of Rs.21 lakhs. This led to a reasonable belief on the part of the Officers of the Respondent that the goods are liable for confiscation. Therefore, the 575 gold bars and Rs.21 lakhs cash found were seized under Section 110 read with Section 123 of the Act. This as gold is a notified good under Section 123 of the Act, while cash was seized in the reasonable belief that it is sale proceeds of smuggled goods;

(c) On the d