Back
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial), K. Anpazhakan, Member (Technical)
Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) – Appellant
Versus
Shri Tutun Chandra Roy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revenue appeals against the commissioner’s ruling on confiscated gold bars, claiming insufficient proof of legal ownership. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent claims gold was legally acquired; documentary evidence needed to substantiate claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. burden of proof in customs cases hinges on evidence of smuggling, which was absent here. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. final ruling upholds previous decision, refraining from attributing smuggling. (Para 10 , 12) |
ORDER: [PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CCP/AKR/696/2021 dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), 3rd Floor, Custom House, 15/1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001.
2. The facts of the case are that on 18.09.2018, two gold bars were seized from Shri Anup Saha, an employee of Shri Tutun Chandra Roy (the respondent herein) before his shop, M/s. Gems & Jarwa House.
The specifications of the seized gold bars were shown as:
i) AS-1 - 156469, weighing 999.900 gms. ii) AS-2 – 151551, weighing 999.900 gms
2.1. The respondent, who is the proprietor of the said firm, admitted that, both the gold bars belonged to him. The shop
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
