9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1310 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction of Government of India - Smuggling - Gold Biscuits - baggage rules - HELD THAT - The decision in the case of SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA SHANTILAL VERSUS CC AHMEDABAD 2012 (9) TMI 824 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD perused where it was held that the appeal has to be rejected as not maintainable and is accordingly rejected and since the jurisdiction lies with Government of India the Registry is directed to transfer the file to Government of India for necessary action. Following the above Division Bench order this appeal is rejected as not maintainable. The matter may be transferred to the Government Revisionary Authority if permissible in law. The appellant is at liberty to file an appeal with the Revisionary Authority notified by the Government of India.
Issues involved:
- Maintainability of the appeal u/s 129 A (1) of Customs Act, 1962. Summary: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD, in the case concerning the appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeal) regarding the illicit import of Gold Biscuits through baggage, deliberated on the maintainability of the appeal before the tribunal. The appellant contended that the appeal should lie with the Tribunal, citing a previous order where it was held that goods brought as baggage should be treated as such. However, the Tribunal, following the Division Bench order, concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and directed the transfer of the matter to the Government Revisionary Authority if permissible by law. The appellant was granted the liberty to appeal to the Revisionary Authority designated by the Government of India. In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal referred to a previous order in the case of Prakash Chandra Shantilal vs. Commissioner of Customs, where it was emphasized that goods brought as baggage should be considered as such unless proven otherwise. The Tribunal highlighted that in the present case, the gold jewelry was brought as part of baggage and not declared, remaining as imported goods. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal's maintainability, emphasizing that the jurisdiction lies with the Government of India and directed the transfer of the file for necessary action. Therefore, based on the proviso to Section 129 A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the principles established in the referenced case law, the Tribunal found the appeal to be not maintainable before the tribunal and ruled accordingly, allowing the appellant to pursue the matter with the appropriate Revisionary Authority designated by the Government of India.
|
