9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 284 - AT - CustomsSmuggling - appeal shall lie before the Tribunal under Section 129A or not - assessee should file the review petition in terms of Section 129DD of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not - Baggage Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT - Baggage Rules, 2016 defines personal effects to mean things required for satisfying daily necessities but does not include jewellery. So, when the jewellery on a person is itself excluded, the gold that was not worn but hidden, gets automatically excluded. Further, Section 129A(1)(a) makes it clear that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in respect of any order which relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. The gold which is imported here having been excluded by the definition of personal effects under Baggage Rules ibid, automatically falls within the ambit of baggage. Thus, no appeal could be entertained by this forum. The appellant can only invoke Section 129DD if he is so advised and accordingly, this appeal is held not maintainable - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 129A for appeal against Orders-in-Appeal involving Baggage Rules, 2016. Analysis: The appeal was filed against Orders-in-Appeal dated 24/04/2019. The Revenue argued that since the Baggage Rules, 2016 were involved, the appeal should not lie before the Tribunal under Section 129A, but the assessee should file a review petition under Section 129DD of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Order-in-Original mentioned that gold was found on the person of the appellant, hidden in the foot band worn for medical purpose. The Revenue contended that the gold was attempted to be imported through accompanied baggage in a concealed form, making Section 129DD applicable for a review petition. The Baggage Rules, 2016 define "personal effects" excluding jewellery, which automatically excludes hidden gold. Section 129A(1)(a) states that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal regarding goods imported or exported as baggage. Since the gold fell within the definition of baggage due to the exclusion of personal effects, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and the appellant was advised to invoke Section 129DD for a review petition. The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the nature of the goods involved and the applicability of Baggage Rules, 2016. The judgment emphasized the exclusion of jewellery from personal effects under the Rules, leading to the automatic exclusion of hidden gold. Section 129A(1)(a) further clarified that no appeal could be entertained regarding goods imported or exported as baggage. As the gold in question was considered part of baggage due to the Rules' definition, the Tribunal agreed that the appeal could not be entertained. The appellant was directed to consider filing a review petition under Section 129DD if advised to do so. The Registry was instructed to return any original papers filed by the appellant upon written request. Overall, the judgment focused on the interpretation of the Baggage Rules, 2016 and the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to determine the maintainability of the appeal before the Tribunal. The decision highlighted the importance of correctly categorizing goods under the applicable regulations to determine the appropriate legal recourse for the appellant.
|
