Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.

Appeal No(s).: C/75836-75839/2017-DB

11. It is a fact on record that, 3 kgs. of gold were seized from the possession of Shri Birendra Kumar Gupta, appellant no. 1 in this case, on 13.01.2016 by the Officers of the DRI at Siliguri. The appellant no. 1, along with the appellant no. 4, viz. Shri Amod Kumar Shah, were not having any valid documents to show licit procurement of the said gold and hence, the said gold was seized by the DRI Officers. The appellant no. 1 was also found to be in possession of Indian currency amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-, which was also seized. By his statement dated 13.01.2016, the appellant no. 1 has named one Shri Samir Sah, the appellant no. 3, to be the intended purchaser of the said gold, who had purportedly sent his father, Shri Binod Kumar Sah, the appellant no. 2, to receive the said gold on his behalf from the appellant no. 1, for a sum of Rs.48,00,000/-, which was recovered from the vehicle of the appellant no. 2 on 13.01.2016 after interception by the DRI Officers. The said Indian currency and vehicle recovered from the appellant no. 2 have also been seized.

17. We have also examined the various decisions which have been referred to by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue in support of his contention that penalties are imposable on the appellants. In the instant case, Shri Birendra Kumar Gupta (appellant no. 1) and Shri Amod Kumar Shah (appellant no. 4) have been found to be involved in the smuggling of gold in this case as they were unable to furnish any valid documents for licit procurement of the same. Accordingly, the penalties imposed on Appeal No(s).: C/75836-75839/2017-DB these appellants have been found to be justified and thus upheld, as already observed by us in the preceding paragraphs. However, there is no evidence available on record in respect of the other two appellants (i.e., the appellant nos. 2 and 3) to the extent that they were in any way concerned with the smuggling of the gold in question. Accordingly, we find that the case-law relied upon by the Revenue are not relevant to the case of these appellants from whom no gold has been seized and against whom no evidence has been brought on record to establish their involvement in the smuggling of gold.