9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a clandestine manner? - Held that: - during the relevant period, the customs did not have necessary jurisdiction within the territory of Special Economic Zone. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Morgan Tectronics Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi [2014 (9) TMI 985 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] make the matter clear, where it was held that the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Customs House, New Delhi had no jurisdiction to confiscate these goods and impose penalty on the appellant and it is only the Joint/ Dy. Commissioner/ Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, in Noida SEZ Unit, who had the jurisdiction to take necessary action The customs did not have jurisdiction within Special Economic Zone established under SEZ scheme by the Ministry of Commerce, Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll polished jewellery weighing 2294.840 gms., which was seized by Customs on 26.04.2009. 3.2 The department s case is that the appellant removed duty free imported gold jewellery 2294.840 gm. valued at ₹ 29,44,823/- involving custom duty of ₹ 3,35,795/- without payment of custom duty in a clandestine manner. Therefore, the duty and interest is recoverable from the appellant under Section 28 read with Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section of SEZ Act, 2005 and Rule 34 of Special Economic Zone, 2006. 4. The appellant mainly submits that: (i) SEZ is considered a foreign territory for the purpose of trade operations, duties and tariffs; and Section 53(1) of SEZ Act, 2005 provide that a Special Economic Zone sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e thereunder and not under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. (vi) Mere invocation of inapplicable provisions of law in the SCN which were disputed by the appellant in reply dated 05.12.2009 to SCN dated 15.10.2009 will not give jurisdiction to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate disputes arising in the SEZ governed strictly by the SEZ Act, 2005 and Rules made thereunder. 4.1. Appellant relies on the following case laws in support: (i) Morgan Tectronics Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi 2005 (316) ELT 276 (Tri. Del.) (ii) Bharat J. Gandhi vs. Union of India 2010 (257) ELT 168 (Guj.) 5. The ld. AR reiterates the findings given by lower revenue authorities. 6. After considering the facts of the case and the submissions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the matter of Whirpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (supra) until the authority issuing show cause notice is able to satisfy the Court about its locus standi and its jurisdiction, authority cannot be allowed to usurp the power to issue show cause notice. Otherwise, the entire object and purpose of establishment of Special Economic Zone will stand frustrated . 7. Considering the observations of Hon ble Gujarat High Court and CESTAT quoted above, we find that customs did not have jurisdiction within Special Economic Zone established under SEZ scheme by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and present proceedings initiated by the customs were beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, impugned order is without proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
