9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 281 - HC - CustomsDemand of duty - 1500 kilo grams duty free gold bars imported - confiscation of 925 kgs gold bars - exemption under the Customs Notification was denied in respect of 925 kgs of gold. - Tribunal set aside the demand, interest and penalty - Held that - the question involved in this appeal is the determination of duty payable and interpretation of notification granting exemption and consequential validity to pay duty and exemption of penalty - Matter to be decided by Apex court - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs V/s M/s Motorala India Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 1014 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . - Decided against the revenue.
Issues: Determination of duty payable, interpretation of notification granting exemption, validity to pay duty, exemption of penalty.
In this case, the High Court of Karnataka heard an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had ruled that the first appellant was not liable to pay duty for the imported gold and was not subject to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellant had imported 1500 kilograms of gold bars duty-free under a customs notification and warehoused them under a general bond. Subsequently, 925 kilograms of gold were loaned to the second appellant, who exported value-added products without realizing the sale proceeds in foreign exchange. The Commissioner had held that the duty-free gold was liable for confiscation, imposed a redemption fine, demanded duty, interest, and imposed a penalty. However, the Tribunal set aside this order, absolving both appellants from duty payment and penalty. The Revenue appealed this decision. The main issue in this appeal was the determination of duty payable and the interpretation of the notification granting exemption, as well as the validity to pay duty and exemption from penalty. The High Court referred to a previous case involving similar questions, where it was held that such matters should be decided by the Supreme Court in an appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act. Consequently, the High Court rejected the appeal as not maintainable, granting the Revenue the liberty to appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act for further consideration of the issues raised.
|
