2024 (3) TMI 1058 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - Smuggling - Gold Bars - HELD THAT - While the confiscated gold was valued at more than Rs. 1 crore at the same time that was apportioned amongst three assessees namely Ms. Disha Tulsiani Sri Nirmal Tulsiani and Sri Ashok Kumar Talhani. Thus individual dispute in each of the appeals is far below the monetary limit of 1 crore. On the earlier dates we allowed learned counsel for the revenue to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record the revenue effect involved in each of the appeals. While an affidavit has been filed by the revenue on 18.11.2023 it does not bring on record the revenue effect involved in each of the appeals. Clearly despite time granted no disclosure has been made by the revenue to establish that the revenue implication in each or any of the appeals exceeds the monetary limit of 1 crore - Since the order passed by the Tribunal is clearly in favour of the assessee and there is no cross appeal filed by revenue no justification or occasion survives for this Court to allow the revenue the luxury of maintaining the present litigation against its own stated litigation policy. The present appeal and the connected appeals are dismissed being below monetary limit.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the confiscation of gold bars, the validity of the Will transferring possession of the gold, the imposition of penalties under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, and the maintainability of appeals based on monetary limits set by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs.

Confiscation of Gold Bars:
The case involved the confiscation of 3.5 kg of gold bars valued at Rs. 1,03,25,000 by the Custom Authority, later confirmed by the adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner of Appeals allowed the appeals filed by the respondents, offering them the option to redeem the gold on payment of a redemption fine. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation, noting that the gold was possessed as a result of a legacy transferred through a Will, and not smuggled items. The Tribunal's decision was based on the authenticity of the Will and lack of concrete evidence to prove it as fraudulent.

Validity of Will and Possession of Gold:
The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, stating that the gold bars mentioned in the Will were possessed as a result of the legacy transferred by the grandmother. It concluded that the goods were not smuggled items, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation and penalties imposed. The Tribunal emphasized the authenticity of the Will and the lack of evidence to prove it as fraudulent.

Imposition of Penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal also deleted the penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It found that the penalties imposed on the appellants were not justified given the legacy transfer through the Will and the lack of evidence to prove smuggling.

Maintainability of Appeals based on Monetary Limits:
The Union of India's litigation policy dictates not preferring or pressing revenue appeals where the revenue implication does not exceed a monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore. The individual disputes in each appeal were below this limit, and despite granting time, the revenue failed to disclose that the revenue implication in any of the appeals exceeded the monetary limit. As a result, the present appeal and connected appeals were dismissed for being below the monetary limit set by the Board.