Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 11 Aug 2026

Lucknow Prev vs Narpat Singh

Legal principle

Gold cannot be confiscated as smuggled goods on the basis of uncorroborated or retracted statements alone; absent foreign markings or independent evidence of foreign origin, the burden of proof under Section 123 remains on the Revenue.

Court decision

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeals: the absolute confiscation of the gold and diamond jewellery does not sustain, the cash of Rs. 11,65,250/- was rightly ordered to be released, and the penalties on the respondents were rightly vacated. The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not addressed whether the Show Cause Notice issued by DRI was valid and proper.

Facts

DRI officers (SRU-Varanasi) intercepted passenger Vinay Kumar Tiwari on a train at Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Junction on 07.06.2023 and recovered gold pieces weighing 1164.950 g valued at Rs. 69,43,102/-, which he admitted in his Section 108 statement was foreign-origin gold smuggled from Dubai to Kolkata with foreign marks erased by remoulding. Acting on his statement, DRI searched the office of Bright Logistics Services at Lucknow and seized 3633.98 g of gold/gold jewellery valued Rs. 1,93,01,590/-, diamond jewellery valued Rs. 49,45,676/-, and Indian currency of Rs. 11,65,250/- as alleged sale proceeds. Adjudication by Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2023 ordered absolute confiscation of 4798.930 g of gold and diamond jewellery under Section 111(a),(b),(d)&(h) read with Section 120, confiscation of the cash under Section 121, and penalties of Rs. 10 lakh and Rs. 5 lakh under Section 112 on several persons including the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation, ordered release of the cash and vacated the penalties, and the Revenue appealed to the CESTAT.

Key provisions