2022 (9) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent to return/release back the seized gold jewellery weighing 2294.840 gm back to the petitioner in compliance of Final order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi in Custom Appeal No. 175/2011." 2. As is evident from the extract of the prayer, the petitioner seeks, in effect, compliance of the final order dated 16.11.2016, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"]. 3. On 05.04.2022, when the matter was heard, it was recorded by the coordinate Bench of this Court (something which is not disputed by the respondents/revenue), that against the order of the Tribunal, the respondents/revenue had preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. 3.1. The Allahabad High Cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h interest from M/s Meenakshi International under the provisions of Section 28 read with Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 34 of the SEZ Rules, 2006: (c) I order for confiscation of the seized goods i.e. 2294.840 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs. 29,44,823/- under Section 111 (j) and 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, however, I give an option for redemption of the said seized goods subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. (d) I order for confiscation of the seized vehicle Toyota Corolla No. DL4CAE0322 valued at Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962; however, I give an option for redemption of the said seized vehicle subject payment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e impugned SCN. Moreover, the search at the factory premises of the Appellant did not disclose any short comings on the stock portion of inputs and outputs; thus certifying the maintenance of records pertaining to the disputed transactions to be correct. Thus, it is not the case that the Appellant had cleared the goods for export irregularly and that such exports are not out of the stock received and maintained at Appellant's firm. xxx xxx xxx 7. Regarding the issue of confiscation, with particular reference to Para 6 of this order it is materially evident that the seized goods were found without relevant / licit documents by Shri Neeraj Rastogi in his vehicle in the notified area of SEZ, Noida as per the proceedings d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the customs were beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, impugned order is without proper authority of law and is hereby set-aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant." [Emphasis is ours.] 6. The position, as it stands today, is that the Tribunal has reversed the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), on the ground that the Customs department was not invested with requisite jurisdiction, albeit, within the Special Economic Zone established under SEZ Scheme framed by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. 6.1. It is on this score, that the Tribunal concluded that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were beyond the jurisdiction of the Customs department. 6.2. Accordingly, the Trib....