TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g disposed of by a common order as they are directed against the same impugned order. M/s Kishan Lal Jewels Pvt. Ltd. is a SEZ unit engaged in import of gold for conversion into gold jewellery and export of the same. All the imports being made by them are reflected in the statutory records required to be maintained during the course of their business. 2. On 29/01/2015, one of the appellant's employees Shri Aminul Islam was caught near exit gate of the SEZ area and his search recovered three kg. pure gold of around three kg. jewellery items. The Revenue entertained a view that the said goods were attempted to be illegally smuggled out of the zone by the said employee and accordingly undertook further investigation. 3. During the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court in the case of Bharti J. Gandhi vs. Union of India 2010 (257) E.L.T. 168 (Guj.). To the same effect the decision of this Bench in the case of Morgan Tectronics Ltd. vide Final Order No.72290-72293/2018 dated 11/09/2018 wherein after taking note of the Tribunal's earlier decision in the case of the same assessee's it was held that Customs Authorities have no jurisdiction to deal with gold imported by unit located in SEZ. For better appreciation Para 3 & 5 of the said decision is reproduced below:- "3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to Para 4.2 of the Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2016 wherein it is stated that a per Rule 27(10) of SEZ Rules, 2006, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Customs Territory of India, and the goods imported were meant for the unit in SEZ Noida. In our view, 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. For this reason also, the impugned orders are not sustainable." Reference can also be made to the case of Charisma Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Para 11 of the said decision which deals with the relevant provisions of Customs Act is being reproduced for the sake of ready reference:- "11. Notwithstanding the above con....