9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand - in the present case, since the seized goods were intercepted and taken possession at gate No.1 within the SEZ area, on this ground also, the proceedings initiated by the Customs will not hold good for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/137-142/2012-CU[DB] - C/A/53585-53590/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 15-5-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Mr. J.M. Sharma, Consultant Present for the Respondent: Mr. Yogesh Agarwal, D.R. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts herein. 3. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the proceedings initiated in this case for confiscation of the gold bars and jewellery and imposition of penalty are not in conformity with the statutory provisions, inasmuch as, the Customs Department did not have the jurisdiction within the SEZ area to initiate the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. To support such stand, the ld. Consultant has relied on the following judgments delivered by the judicial forum:- 1. Meenakshi International Vs. CC (I G), New Deli Final Order No.C/A/55037/2016-CU (DB) 2016 (11) TMI( 851 CESTAT, New Delhi. 2. Bharat J. Gandhi Vs. Union of India 2010 (257) ELT 168 (Gujrat). 3. Morgon Techtronics Vs. CC, Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the ld. D.R. are that the ratio decided therein is not applicable inasmuch as, the facts were not clear whether the gold bars were seized by the Department within or outside the SEZ area. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. On going through the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Meenakshi International (supra) , we find that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant with consequential benefits, holding that the Customs did not have jurisdiction within the SEZ area established under SEZ Scheme by Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and accordingly, proceedings cannot be initiated for confirmation of the adjudged demand. The relevant paragraphs in the said decision are extracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a unit situated in SEZ is concerned. 7. In view of the decision of the Hon ble the Apex Court 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 pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
