2021 (8) TMI 1394 - AT - Customs

Seeking adjournment of appeal - appeal was dismissed on monetary grounds - Revenue informs that there has been an error in the Final Order as the litigation policy was applicable only for central excise and service tax matters and not to Customs matter. The learned advocate for the assessee mentioned that this appeal arise from same common impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the absolute confiscation of gold which was seized from the appellant. So the appellant assessee is in appeal against the order for penalty and redemption fine whereas Revenue is in appeal against modification of absolute confiscation to simple confiscation. HELD THAT - These appeals are adjourned. Both the appeals are tagged together. Put up this matter for further order as and when the bench is available after three months.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Applicability of litigation policy to Customs matters.
3. Appeal against penalty and redemption fine by the appellant.
4. Appeal by Revenue against modification of confiscation.
5. Impact of pending Writ Petition on the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was disposed of as not maintainable under the litigation policy due to the substantial amounts involved in redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal observed that the appeal was not maintainable based on the policy.

2. The Authorized Representative pointed out an error in the Final Order, indicating that the litigation policy applied only to central excise and service tax matters, not Customs matters. Reference was made to Instruction F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 03 June, 2013, to support this argument.

3. The appellant in Customs Appeal No.70555 of 2019 challenged the order for penalty and redemption fine following the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the absolute confiscation of seized gold. The appeal focused on contesting the penalty and redemption fine imposed.

4. The Revenue's appeal was against the modification of absolute confiscation to simple confiscation. This aspect highlighted the differing positions of the parties regarding the confiscation of the seized gold, leading to separate appeals before the Tribunal.

5. The ongoing Writ Petition filed by the appellant in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, concerning the disposal of the gold by Revenue, was noted to have a direct impact on the appeal. The Tribunal adjourned the appeals, tagging them together and scheduling further proceedings after three months to await developments in the Writ Petition.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD covers the various issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decisions and directions based on the facts and legal considerations presented before it.