TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the value of absolutely confiscated gold could be treated as compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the first appellate order rejecting the appeal at the threshold could be set aside and the appeal restored for decision on merits.
Analysis: The Tribunal noted that, after the 2014 amendment, section 129E makes pre-deposit compulsory for maintainability of appeals, but the controversy here concerned whether confiscated gold, which had been absolutely confiscated without an option of redemption, could be treated differently from goods that remain subject to duty liability. It reasoned that where confiscation is absolute, the duty element ordinarily associated with redemption under section 125 does not arise in the same manner, and the value of the seized gold can be treated as having effectively been deposited for the purpose of section 129E. On that basis, the objection of non-maintainability was rejected. Since the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal without deciding the merits, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the appeal for adjudication on merits.
Conclusion: The appeal was held maintainable on the basis that the value of the absolutely confiscated gold sufficed toward pre-deposit, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for disposal on merits.
Final Conclusion: The impugned threshold dismissal was set aside and the appeal was restored for a substantive hearing before the first appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscated goods are absolutely confiscated and no redemption duty element survives, their value may be treated as satisfying the statutory pre-deposit requirement for maintainability of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
