Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Lucknow Prev vs Shri Sumit Verma S/O Sri Shiv Verma on 2 May, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I
Customs Appeal No.70297 of 2025
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.384-387-CUS/APPL/LKO/2024 dated
15.07.2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST & Central
Excise, Lucknow)
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),
Lucknow .....Appellant
(Lucknow)
VERSUS
Shri Sumit Verma S/o
Shri Shiv Verma, ....Respondent
(41/1, N.K. Banerjee Sreet, Rishra M, Rishra, Hooghly,
W.B. 712248)
WITH
(i) Customs Stay Application No.70069/2025 in
Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 (Shri Anil Soni
S/o Shri Ramavtar Soni);
(ii) Customs Stay Application No.70070/2025 in
Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 (Shri Ritesh Soni
S/o Shri Aril Soni);
(iii) Customs Stay Application No.70071/2025 in
Customs Appeal No.70322/2025 (Shri Ranjan
Soni S/o Shri Ramartar Soni).
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.384-387-CUS/APPL/LKO/2024 dated
15.07.2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST & Central
Excise, Lucknow)
APPEARANCE:
Shri A. K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative for the Revenue
Shri Kartikeya Narain, Advocate & Nishant Mishra, Advocate for the
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NOs.- 70245-70248/2025
MISCELLANEOUS ORDER NOs.-70100-70102/2025
Customs Appeal No.70297/2025
2 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025
Customs Appeal No.70321/2025
Customs Appeal No.70322/2025
DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.05.2025
P. K. CHOUDHARY:
These appeals have been filed by the Revenue assailing
the Order-in-Appeal No.384-387-CUS/APPL/LKO/2024 dated
15.07.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Customs,
CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow, by which the appeals filed by
the Respondents herein have been allowed and the confiscation
of seized gold bars along with penalties imposed on them have
been set-aside.
2. Brief facts as stated in the impugned order are that a
person namely Shri Sumit Verma was apprehended by the
Officials of DRI, Lucknow Zonal Unit along with 03 pcs. of gold
bars weighing 3000 grams valued at Rs.1,75,55,000/- on
27.01.2023 at Kanpur Railway Station, while he was travelling
by Train No.22307 (Howrah-Bikaner Express) from Kolkata to
Jaipur. It is the case of the Revenue that when apprehended,
Shri Sumit Verma could not produce any licit document in
respect of purchase/import of recovered gold.
3. In his statement dated 28.01.2023, Shri Sumit Verma
stated that Shri Anil Soni is the owner of the recovered gold
bars, who gave the said gold bars to him for delivery to Shri
Ritesh Soni at Jaipur. Shri Anil Soni had told him that the
recovered gold bars were smuggled from Bangladesh and were
melted subsequently to erase the foreign markings and that he
could not produce any licit documents with respect to
purchase/import of the said recovered gold bars. The recovered
gold bars were then seized under Section 110 r/w Section 123 of
the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Shri Anil Soni, in his statement dated 24.04.2023, stated
that he is one of the partners in a jewellery firm namely M/s R.A.
Mosun Jewellers, Kolkata, he gave the recovered gold bars to his
employee Shri Sumit Verma to handover the same to his son
Shri Ritesh Soni at Jaipur, he did not give any document to Shri
Customs Appeal No.70297/2025
3 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025
Customs Appeal No.70321/2025
Customs Appeal No.70322/2025
Sumit Verma regarding the said gold, which was melted at his
firm M/s R.A. Mosun Jewellers, Kolkata and that Shri Ranjan Soni
is his brother who keeps all the records of the said firm.
5. During further investigation, Shri Ritesh Soni and Shri
Ranjan Soni were summoned but they did not turn up. The CDR
analysis revealed that Shri Sumit Verma, Shri Anil Soni and Shri
Ritesh Soni were in constant touch with each other during the
relevant period.
6. A Show Cause Notice1 dated 21.03.2023 was issued
proposing confiscation of seized gold bars along with seized
packing materials under Section 111(b), (h), (l) & (m) & Section
118 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty on Shri
Sumit Verma under Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act,
1962. A supplementary SCN dated 22.06.2023 was thereafter
issued wherein after referring to ane-Invoice Ack
No.182312959628848 Ack dated 31.03.2023, the confiscation of
seized gold bars alongwith imposition of penalties on Shri Anil
Soni, Shri Ritesh Soni and Shri Ranjan Soni under Section
112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was proposed.
7. The SCN and supplementary SCN were contested by the
noticees on the ground that M/s R.A. Mosun Jewellers is
registered under GST with its principal place of business at
Kolkata and additional place of business at Jaipur, for the
purpose of new designs of jewellery the Jaipur office used to
send jewellery to Kolkata office under GST invoice/tax
invoice/credit notes for re-designing or melting the gold so that
it can be used again to manufacture different kinds of jewellery,
after melting at Kolkata the stock transfer was repatriated/stock-
transferred back to Jaipur under tax invoice dated 26.01.2023,
which was there with Shri Sumit Verma but was inadvertently
masked by the DRI and the gold was illegally branded as
smuggled gold from Bangladesh. Along with the reply, the
noticees also submitted copies of tax invoice dated 26.01.2023,
purchase register, sale register, electronic cash register and
1
SCN
Customs Appeal No.70297/2025
4 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025
Customs Appeal No.70321/2025
Customs Appeal No.70322/2025
stock register, in support of payment of tax and proper
accountal.
8. The SCNs were adjudicated vide Order-in-Original
No.115/ADC/2023 dated 05.12.2023 wherein the confiscation of
seized gold and imposition of penalties on the noticees was
confirmed by relying on the statements recorded and the CDR.
The Adjudicating Authority also held that tax invoice/e-invoice
dated 31.01.2023 was created by Shri Ranjan Soni in respect of
seized foreign origin gold to cover up the whole issue of
smuggling.
9. Aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 05.12.2023,
the noticees preferred separate appeals before the Ld.
Commissioner (Appeals), which were allowed vide Order-in-
Appeal No.384-387-CUS/APPL/LKO/2024 dated 15.07.2024. The
Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the case was of town
seizure with no foreign markings engraved on the recovered gold
bars, the department could not bring any cogent evidence on
record to establish foreign origin of recovered gold and its
smuggling into the Country, the recovered gold bars were
transported under cover of tax invoice/e-invoice No.
RAMJ/50/22-23 dated 26.01.2023 which was duly entered in the
stock register and therefore the burden under Section 123
stands discharged. The penalties imposed on the noticees have
also been set-aside in the impugned order.
10. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the Appellant Revenue
has preferred the present appeals. Ld. Authorized Representative
for the Appellant revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal, as
stated in Review Order No.04/24-25 dated 10.10.2024, to the
effect that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in treating the
seizure as town seizure, statement of Shri Sumit Verma recorded
under Section 108 is a material piece of evidence, he also
admitted that he was not carrying any licit document, CRCL
report shows that the seized gold was of 99.76% gold content
and that on scanning the QR code on the tax invoice/e-invoice
Customs Appeal No.70297/2025
5 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025
Customs Appeal No.70321/2025
Customs Appeal No.70322/2025
bearing No. RAMJ/50/22-23 dated 26.01.2023, the same was
found to be issued on 31.01.2023 instead of 26.01.2023.
11. Per contra, ld. counsel for the Respondents submits that
the impugned order has been passed after considering and
appreciating the entire facts of the case, statement of Shri Sumit
Verma at best constitutes hearsay evidence and without there
being any other evidence on record the allegation of foreign
origin gold and smuggling does not stands proved, the subject
gold was being transported on the strength of valid tax invoice
dated 26.01.2023 which is a valid GST invoice, which was also
subsequently reported to Invoice Registration Portal2 whereupon
an e-invoice with QR code was generated and that the report of
CRCL cannot be relied upon for the very first time in appeal.
12. Heard both the sides, considered the submissions and
perused the appeal records.
13. We find from records that the present case is that of town
seizure, where the subject gold bars were seized from Shri Sumit
Verma while he was travelling from Kolkata to Jaipur and there
were also no foreign markings on the subject gold bars.
14. Section 110 confers powers on the proper officer to seize
goods only if he has reasons to believe that the goods are liable
for confiscation. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of Shanti Lal Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. 1983 (14)
E.L.T. 1715 (Del), elaborately dealt with town seizures and the
evidences required to have the 'reasonable belief' that the goods
are smuggled in nature, in such cases. The relevant portion of
the said decision is reproduced below: -
"54. The other question which was argued before me was
that the customs officer did not act on any reasonable
belief when he searched the petitioner's premises on 15-
12-1967 and seized the goods. Section 110 opens with the
words "if the proper officer has reason to believe that any
goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may
seize such goods". What is the meaning of "reasonable
2
IRP
Customs Appeal No.70297/2025
6 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025
Customs Appeal No.70321/2025
Customs Appeal No.70322/2025
belief"? Did the officer entertain reasonable belief in the
facts and the circumstances of this case? This is the other
question to be decided. The Supreme Court has said
that reasonable belief is a pre-requisite condition of the
power of seizure that the statute confers on the officer.
(See Collector of Customs v. Sampathu Chetty, AIR 1962
S.C. 316). The preliminary requirement of Section 110 is
that the officer seizing should entertain a reasonable
belief that the goods seized were smuggled.
55. Reasonable belief as required by Section 110 refers to
the point of time when the goods in question are seized
and not to a stage subsequent to the act of seizure. (M.G.
Abrol v. Amichand, AIR 1961 Bom. 227). The condition
precedent that there was such a reasonable belief anterior
to the seizure must exist before the presumption under
section 123 can be invoked. Section 123 says :
...............
56. In Babulal Amthalal Mehta v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1957 S.C. 877, while considering the provisions of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, it was observed;
"Though the word `smuggling' is not defined in the Act, it must be understood as having the ordinary dictionary meaning, namely, carrying of goods clandestinely into a country."
Where Section 123 cannot be invoked it would be for the customs authorities to prove that the goods were imported after the restrictions against import were imposed. (Amba Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1961 S.C. 264 = 1983 E.L.T. 1321). In Pukhraj v. D.R. Kohli, AIR 1962 S.C. 1559 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1360, the Supreme Court said that when the court was dealing with the question as to whether the belief in the mind of the officer who effected a seizure, was reasonable or not, the court was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the said officer. All that it could consider was whether there was any ground which prima facie justified a reasonable belief. That the officer had reasonable belief must be stated in the notice to show cause. It must be adjudicated upon by the authorities under the Act. At the stage of appeal or revision from the orders of the officer adjudging confiscation each successive appellate or Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 7 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025 revisional authority has also to address itself to this requirement of reasonable belief.
The seizing officer either by his own evidence or other materials placed before the adjudicating authority, has to prove to its satisfaction that there was ground for him to reasonably believe that the goods were smuggled goods, that is to say that the goods were imported into the country and imported at a time and place when they were restricted or prohibited from being imported. If the adjudicating authority is not satisfied that the goods were seized on a reasonable belief, Section 123 cannot be invoked and in that event, it would be for the customs authorities to prove that the goods were smuggled and Section 123 in that event would have no application. If, therefore, Section 123 is wrongly applied and the presumption thereunder is raised, without the condition precedent thereunder having been satisfied, the entire inquiry and the order passed therein would be vitiated. In Collector of Customs v. Sampathu Chetty (supra) the Supreme Court under the old Sea Customs Act of 1878 said :
"The entire evidence in the possession of the seizing officer would be and has to be before the officer adjudicating the confiscation under section 182 of the Sea Customs Act. No doubt, on the language of Section 178A the presumption of the goods being smuggled arises only when the seizure is made by an officer entertaining a reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled, and in that sense the reasonable belief of the seizing officer is a pre- requisite for the statutory onus to arise. It is also true that at the stage of adjudication, the reasonableness of the belief of the officer effecting the seizure that the goods are smuggled would be the subject-matter of investigation by the adjudicating officer. Nevertheless, it is manifest that at the stage of the adjudication (when only the rule of evidence laid down by the section comes into operation) the very facts which led the seizing officer to effect the seizure, as distinguished from their significance as affording a reasonable belief for the seizing officer to hold that the goods are smuggled, are before the adjudicating officer. These facts which justified the seizing officer to reasonably believe that the goods were smuggled would certainly import a Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 8 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025 rational connection between the facts on which the presumption is raised and the fact to be proved, so that whatever other constitutional infirmity might attach to the impugned provision, the lack of rational connection is not one of them."
It would be necessary, therefore, before any person could be called upon to prove that the goods seized from him were not smuggled goods, that the customs officer making the seizure must proceed upon the foundation of a reasonable belief inspired in him by some definite material by way of some definite information or otherwise so that he could be said to have seized the goods in a reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods. (Bapalal v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1965 Gujarat
135). The question is whether the record before me shows that there was a reasonable belief in the mind of the seizing officer that the goods were smuggled goods. It does not appear to me that he had entertained any reasonable belief at the time of seizure. Neither the board on appeal, nor the Central Government applied their mind to this question.
Two reasons :
57. Applying the principles of these cases to the facts of the present case what do we find? Two reasons were given in support of the reasonable belief. One is that the customs authorities received some information. What is that information? It was never disclosed to the petitioner. Nor was it disclosed to the adjudicating authorities. Very vague words such as `on information received' are used in the show cause notice. The information on which the customs authorities act must be definite information. No one suggests that they must disclose the name of the informant. That would be detrimental to investigation and against public interest. The least they can do is to give the gist of the information so that the person from whom the goods are seized knows the nature of the information received by the customs. To hold otherwise would mean that the customs officer can act on any information, wishy- washy though it may be, received from the underworld the nature of which the man in the over-world will not be entitled to know. The words "reasonable belief" used in Section 110(1) are intended to check the exercise of the Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 9 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025 powers given to the customs officers arbitrarily and without any foundation at all, to the harassment of the general public. The customs officer must have some definite materials by way of some definite information to form the foundation of his reasonable belief (M.G. Abrol supra).
58. The second reason for entertaining a reasonable belief is that the seized goods were not accounted for by the petitioner on 15-2-1967 when the officer seized the goods from his possession. The seized goods consisted of 20 items of ornaments and diamonds. Out of these six items were released before the show cause notice was issued. One item was released at the adjudication stage. Six items were released by the Board on appeal. Only 7 items have been confiscated. These consist of 2 packets of diamonds and 5 ornaments. The petitioner claimed that they belonged to the queen mother of Nepal. A letter was written to queen mother. On her behalf a reply was received that she had given certain ornaments to the petitioner for polishing, remaking etc., though not for sale. But this was done later on. The letter was written on 3-7- 1967. The reply was received on 24-7-1967. But at the time of seizure all that the officer had before him were 2 packets of diamonds and 5 ornaments. Neither the diamonds nor the ornaments had any foreign markings or label to suggest to the customs that these were smuggled goods. In the search list these two packets of diamonds are described as "appearing to be diamonds". This shows that the customs officer did not believe them to be diamonds on any reasonable ground. The ornaments had no foreign label or making. They were ordinary ornaments as are worn in this country. There was nothing peculiar about them. Nothing extraordinary. On this material could any reasonable man entertain a belief that these were smuggled goods?
59. The belief must be such as any reasonable man in the circumstances of the case would entertain about the existence or non-existence of a thing. Simply because the goods were not accounted for at that time does not necessarily mean that the goods were smuggled goods. Unaccounted goods may be stolen goods. Reasonable belief could be entertained either on the basis of some external indicia or on the basis of some internal Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 10 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025 information that the goods had been illegally imported into India from Nepal or some other foreign country either without payment of duty or in contravention of any restriction or prohibition imposed by statute. There was nothing to suggest the foreign origin of the goods. There was nothing to suggest the illegal importation of the goods into the country.
60. The goods must be smuggled goods. The word `smuggled' means that the goods were of foreign origin and they had been imported from abroad. Only then does the presumption under section 123 arise. The goods themselves did not suggest that the petitioner was an old smuggler or a dealer in smuggled goods. If there was such information with the customs, they ought to have disclosed it. The goods themselves did not suggest any illicit importation. Nor was there any inscription on the goods which could be the basis of the reasonable belief that the goods were of foreign origin. There was nothing in the appearance of the goods to suggest that they had been newly manufactured and brought into this country very recently from another country. In a word there was nothing absolutely from which inferences about their origin or recent import could arise. It was not a case where large quantity of gold with foreign markings was found hidden in the trousers of the accused as happened in Hukma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 S.C. 476.
61. In fact there is a finding by the Board in favour of the petitioner supporting his contention that there could be no reasonable belief in the mind of the officer when he seized the goods. On the penalty of Rs. 25,000/-imposed on the petitioner the Board observed : "there is no definite evidence to show that the appellant knew or had reason to believe that those items were smuggled. In the absence of this evidence the penalty imposed is not justified. The Board accordingly remits the personal penalty in full". If the petitioner did not know that the goods were smuggled, how could the customs officer reasonably believe that the goods were smuggled. The petitioner knew better.
62. The customs officer merely thought that as the goods had not been accounted for these are smuggled goods. At the time of seizure what happened was this. The petitioner was present at the shop. He told the customs officer that Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 11 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025 they were duly entered in his account books but his accountant had gone to the income tax officer. The officer did not wait for the man to arrive to explain the entries to him. He seized the goods and took them away. This was not a case of reasonable belief. It was a case of suspicion. A case of speculation. A case of guess work.
63. As a result Section 123 did not apply to the case. There was no reasonable belief. No presumption could be raised under section 123. There was no obligation on the petitioner to prove that the goods were not smuggled. The burden of proof was wrongly cast on him. The entire inquiry was vitiated."
15. The aforesaid judgment has been followed and the test enunciated therein has been applied by the Tribunal in R.K. Swami Singh vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong (2024) 18 Centax 459 (Tri-Cal), Neeraj Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata (2024) 18 Centax 539 (Tri-Cal) and Balwant Raj Soni vs. Commissioner [Final Order Nos.75455-75457/2023 dated 18.05.2023].
16. Applying the aforesaid test in the present case, we find that the seizure was made on the basis of statement of Shri Sumit Verma. On perusal of the statement as reproduced in the SCN, we find that the fact of smuggling and melting was not stated by Shri Sumit Verma on the basis of his own knowledge but on the basis of what was told to him by Shri Anil Soni. While the revenue is heavily relying on the statement of Shri Sumit Verma and its evidentiary value, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the statement of Shri Sumit Verma, at best, constitutes a hearsay statement, as what was stated by him was only hearsay. At the same time, Shri Anil Soni in his statement nowhere admitted the fact of smuggling or foreign origin of recovered gold bars. In these facts, it was incumbent upon the revenue to bring on record some other corroborative evidence to support the charge of smuggling. However, no further corroboration has been made by the revenue by leading any other evidence to show smuggled nature of subject gold bars.
Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 12 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025 Thus, we observe that the reason to believe on which the officers presumed that the recovered gold bars were of smuggled nature is not supported by any corroborative evidence. There is no document available on record to establish that gold bars were smuggled into India without payment of customs duty. Hence the statement of Shri Sumit Verma does not establish 'reason to believe' that the gold bars were smuggled into India without any valid documents.
17. We also find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly treated the seizure as 'town seizure' as cases of town seizure requires greater degree of proof of smuggling and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the statements of Shri Sumit Verma and Shri Anil Soni, has rightly held that there is no cogent evidence on record to support the charge of smuggling or foreign origin of seized gold bars.
18. Further, the impugned order records a categorical finding that the noticees discharged burden of proof under Section 123, as under:-
"5.6 Further, the appellants have produced a copy of Tax invoice/e-invoice No. RAMJ/50/22-23 dated 26.01.2023 with respect to the recovered gold bars. On careful examination, I notice that it is categorically mentioned in the said invoice that 03 pcs. of gold bars were sent to Jaipur branch by train with Shri Sumit Verma, who was apprehended by the officials, while travelling by train no. 22307 (Howrah-Bikaner Express) from Kolkata to Jaipur. Thus, the said invoice has confirmed the transportation of the recovered gold bars with Shri Sumit Verma by train. I also find that the said invoice is duly entered in the stock register of „gold‟. Hence, I am of the view that the appellants have discharged their obligation in terms of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962."
Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 13 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025
19. We find that the aforesaid finding in the impugned order regarding discharge of onus under Section 123, has not been challenged by the revenue, as the revenue has not raised any ground in its grounds of appeal challenging the aforesaid finding. In absence of any challenge, we find that the revenue does not dispute that the Respondents have discharged the burden and consequently the fact that the seized gold bars were not smuggled stands proved.
20. This takes us to another plea taken by the revenue that on scanning the QR code on the tax invoice/e-invoice bearing No. RAMJ/50/22-23 dated 26.01.2023, the same was found to be issued on 31.01.2023 instead of 26.01.2023. At the outset, we note that this a completely new plea taken by the revenue for the very first time, as the invoice in question was on record before the Adjudicating Authority as well as before the Appellate Authority and it was open for the revenue to take all possible objections in the SCN, adjudication order and also before the Appellate Authority, yet this objection was not taken before the Lower Authorities and this new plea has been taken before the Tribunal for the very first time.
21. However, in the interest of justice, we propose to deal with this new plea. On confronting the ld. counsel for the Respondent with this plea, he explained that under the GST regime, Section 35 casts burden on the registered person supplying taxable goods, to issue a tax invoice, before or at the time of removal and since in the present case, the Kolkata and Jaipur office of M/s R.A. Mosum were separate registered persons, hence the Kolkata office issued tax invoice dated 26.01.2023, while supplying subject gold bars to Jaipur office. Subsequent to the issuance of tax invoice on 26.01.2023, the Kolkata office also reported the said tax invoice on IRP on 31.01.2023, whereupon the Ack. No.182312959G28848 was issued on 31.01.2023. He further submits that the tax invoice was issued on 26.01.2023 and was acknowledged on 31.01.2023, is apparent from the invoice itself which mentions both the dates and therefore the Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 14 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025 objection of the revenue that on scanning the QR code the invoice was found to be issued on 31.01.2023 instead of 26.01.2023 is completely incorrect on the face of the invoice.
22. On examining the invoice, we find that the objection of the revenue that the tax invoice was issued on 31.01.2023 and not on 26.01.2023 is completely incorrect. In fact, the invoice itself refers to both the dates i.e. 26.01.2023 as the date of issuance of tax invoice and 31.01.2023 as the date on which the tax invoice was acknowledged by IRP. From the FAQ issued by the Board for 'steps of e-invoicing', we find that the tax payer is first required to create GST invoices on their own accounting system, thereafter the invoices are reported to any one of the six IRP, on reporting, IRP returns a signed e-invoice with a unique 'invoice reference number' along with QR code whereupon the invoice is shared with GST systems for auto-population in the suppliers GSTR-1 return. The entire mechanism to report a tax invoice on IRP and thereafter issuance of e-invoice with a unique 'invoice reference number' along with QR code, is to ensure that the details of invoice gets auto-populated in GSTR-1 of the supplier. However, the same will not change the date of tax invoice from 26.01.2023 to 31.01.2023. We further find that the tax invoice dated 26.01.2023 contains the entire details of transaction including the details of consignor, consignee, goods and the tax charged therein. Once all these details including the tax charged therein has not been disputed by the revenue and there is no dispute that the tax charged has been deposited with the Government Exchequer, the credentials of tax invoice dated 26.01.2023 cannot be doubted. Further, it is not even the case of the revenue that there is no explanation for reporting of tax invoice on 31.01.2023, as tax invoice was reported late due to non-availability of Shri Ranjan Soni, who was looking after all the compliance work. Thus, merely because the tax invoice was reported on 31.01.2023, the same would not dilute the fact of issuance of tax invoice on 26.01.2023 and the objection now taken by the revenue clearly appears to be misconceived.
Customs Appeal No.70297/2025 15 Customs Appeal No.70320/2025 Customs Appeal No.70321/2025 Customs Appeal No.70322/2025
23. This takes us to the last ground of appeal i.e. the report issued by CRCL. On perusing the records, we find that neither the said report forms part of SCN nor the said report was part of the adjudication order. The revenue also failed to bring the said report on record before the Appellate Authority. In these circumstances, once this report has been brought on record for the very first time in this appeal, we cannot allow the revenue to raise this new plea at this stage. Needless to say, this Tribunal cannot sustain the case of the revenue on a ground which was not there in the SCN or in the adjudication order and therefore we don't see any fruitful purpose to consider the same at this stage.
24. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, the same is sustained. All the four appeals filed by the revenue are hereby rejected. All the Stay Applications also gets disposed off.
(Order pronounced in open court on - 02.05.2025) (P. K. CHOUDHARY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (P. ANJANI KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) LKS