CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. I CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50647 OF 2024 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-EXCUS-000-APP-175-179-2023-24 dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST, Central Excise, Indore (M.P.)]

Shri Gourav Jain ..…Appellant Partner of M/s. Pulak Ornaments LLP, 301, Shri Ji Plaza, Bada Sarafa, Indore (M.P.)

VERSUS The Commissioner of Customs .....Respondent Office of the Commissioner of Customs, B-Zone, 3rd Floor, Village Pipliyakumar, Nipaniya, Indore 452001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Nikhil Mohan Goyal, Authorized Representative for the Department CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing: 12.08.2025 Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50222/2026 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

This appeal has been filed by Gourav Jain¹, a partner in M/s. Pulak Ornaments LLP, for quashing the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST, Central Excise, Indore (M.P.)² to the extent it rejects the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, 1. the appellant

2. the Commissioner (Appeals)

Indore³ that confirms the confiscation of gold bars and the bag and the vehicle used for concealment of gold bars. The Additional Commissioner has also imposed penalty upon the appellant under sections 112(b)(i) and

114AA of the Customs Act, 1962⁴

2. It is stated on 20.03.2021, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence5 conducted a search of a vehicle and recovered 6900 grams of gold bars. As the person was unable to produce invoice or supporting documentation at the time of interception, the investigating authority proceeded to seize the gold bars under section 110 of the Customs Act.

3. On 21.03.2021, statements of Ajay Kumar Jain, an employee of the appellant and Mohammad Nisar Mew, driver of the vehicle, and the appellant were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. They stated that they took delivery of the gold bars from M/s. S.R. & Co.

located at Ahmedabad against cash payment.

4. The investigating officers then searched the premises of M/s. S.R. & Co. and seized the purchase documents, ledgers of GST sales and purchase, cash ledgers, note books and DVR under a Panchnama dated

21.03.2021.

5. Statement of Mitul Kumar Patel, partner of M/s. S.R. & Co., was also recorded on 21.03.2021. He stated that the gold bars were sold against cash to the appellant.

6. The appellant claims to have purchased the disputed gold bars from S.R. & Co. located at Ahmedabad on 20.03.2021 and had sent his employee and the driver to get delivery of the gold bars from Mitual Kumar Patel, Partner of S.R. & Co. The appellant also produced Invoice dated 20.03.2021 relating to the sale of gold bars during the investigation.

3. the Additional Commissioner

4. the Customs Act

5. DRI

7. From 30.04.2021 to 30.09.2021, statements of various persons, including the appellant and Mitul Kumar Patel, were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act.

8. On 29.05.2021, M/s. S.R. & Co. addressed a letter to the investigating authority stating that it had sold the gold bars in question to M/s. Pulak Ornaments LLP under the Invoice dated 20.03.2021. It was further clarified that the said gold bars were originally purchased by M/s. S.R. & Co. from M/s. Ariplutus Metals Pvt. Ltd. under Invoice dated 19.03.2021. In the said communication M/s. S.R. & Co. also categorically denied the contents of the recorded statement wherein it was stated that they had received cash payment from Pulak Ornaments towards the sale of the gold bars.

9. On 25.06.2021, the appellant retracted his earlier statements and submitted a written communication to the investigating authority asserting that the statements had earlier been made by him under section 108 of the Customs Act under apprehension of arrest and under coercion and undue pre