9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent: Mr. Amandeep Kumar, Authorized Representative ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is located in Dubai, outside of India and having no office in India. He is supplying confectionary items to var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to some other importer which has been decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal reported in 2021 (3) TMI 775 CESTAT-NEW DELHI. 4. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. is relying on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Prerna Singh, CO of the appellant company reported in 2020(1)-TMI-905-CESTATMUMBAI. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the court to assist the court. 7. In view of this, I hold that as Section 1, sub section (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 admittedly is having jurisdiction in only within whole of India and its territories and cannot be extended beyond India and the appellant is located outside of India, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Customs Act, 1962, therefore, I do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
