2014 (7) TMI 454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals filed by the Respondents herein were allowed. Though the 2 Members of the CESTAT had a difference of opinion on certain aspects which have been referred to a Third Member, they were in agreement on some other aspects of the matter, and hence the present Appeal. 2. The facts stated briefly are that the Airport Intelligence Unit effected a seizure of USD 70,000/- from Respondent No.1 departing for Dubai from CSI Airport on 23rd February, 2004. During the course of investigations, it was revealed that Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were involved in the current case and also in five previous visits abroad wherein an amount of USD 3,50,000/- was stated to have been carried out of the country illegally by the Respondent No.1. After the investiga....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Satish Choudhary (Respondent No.3) were set aside. (c) Penalty on Mr Om Prakash Jhunjhunwala (Respondent No.2) were dropped. (d) Adjustment of foreign currency seized from M/s Monalisa Forex Services Pvt.Ltd. against the dues of other appellants was held to be not sustainable and hence set aside. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CESTAT, the Appellant has approached this Court by way of an Appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act 1962. Mr Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that this Appeal raises substantial questions of law as more particularly framed at page 6 of the Appeal paper-book. It was submitted by Mr Jetly that the situation in this case is a peculiar one, particularly when th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise, in Central Excise Appeal No.31 of 2013 wherein this Court by its judgment dated 11th April 2014, in almost identical facts, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. In that case, noting that once the third Member takes a decision either agreeing with the Member (Judicial) or the Member (Technical), either party is not remedy-less to challenge the decision of the majority, dismissed the Appeal on the ground that it was premature but keeping all rival contentions open to be raised at an appropriate stage. 7. On going through the facts of the present case, we find force in the argument of Mr. Shah that the Appeal filed in the present case is premature at this stage and does not raise any substantial question of law to be considered by....