2023 (12) TMI 1140 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - availability of alternative remedy - Recovery of the Drawback sanctioned u/r 18 of Duty Drawback Rules, 2017 - levy of penalty u/s 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the issue involved in the present case is in relation to the goods imported as baggage - From the Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 it is evident that the appeal in the present case against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) would not lie before this Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Appeal is dismissed as non maintainable - Appellant may pursue the appellate remedy as provided in law.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against recovery of duty drawback and penalty u/s 17 of Customs Act, 1962, due to delay in export proceeds and BRCs. Maintainability of appeal before CESTAT u/s 129A(1) of Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Recovery of duty drawback and penalty

The appellant was sanctioned duty drawback of Rs.10,97,681/- for exports made under shipping bill No.1501 dated 15.02.2017. Due to delay in export proceeds and BRCs, the Original Authority ordered recovery under Rule 18 of Duty Drawback Rules, 2017. A penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed u/s 17 of Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the drawback and dropped the demand for the amount realized within stipulated time, upholding the rest. The appellant appealed against this decision.

Issue 2: Maintainability of appeal before CESTAT

The matter was adjourned multiple times, with the appellant's counsel seeking adjournment again on personal grounds. The issue was deemed narrow and capable of decision based on the maintainability of appeal before CESTAT. Section 129A(1) of Customs Act, 1962 specifies orders appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, excluding those related to goods imported as baggage. As the present case concerns goods imported as baggage, the appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order was found non-maintainable before CESTAT. The appeal was dismissed on this ground, with the appellant advised to pursue further legal remedies.

*(Separate Judgement)*
Judge's Name: HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

In the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical), the issue of maintainability of the appeal before CESTAT was the focal point. The judgment emphasized the specific exclusion of appeals related to goods imported as baggage u/s 129A(1) of Customs Act, 1962. It was concluded that since the present case involved goods imported as baggage, the appeal did not lie before CESTAT, resulting in its dismissal. The appellant was directed to explore other legal avenues for redressal.