2025 (4) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 112(A) and 112(B)(1) on one Shri Trilika Nandu (hereinafter referred to as Respondent). This penalty was imposed on the Respondent in view of his admission that he had purchased impugned smuggled gold from some person in Chennai and sold to one Shri J. Suresh in Vijayawada, which rendered him liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b)(i). In addition, an amount of Rs. 32,75,000/- was also confiscated from the Respondent in terms of Section 121 by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. Both the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and confiscation of cash amount of Rs. 32,75,000/- was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... off accordingly. 4. Learned Advocate further submits that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied on the judgments of the Tribunal dated 16.11.2022, where the Tribunal had decided the matter in favour of one Shri J. Suresh, who was also a co-noticee in the present appeal. The Tribunal has categorically held that the gold weighing 476.640 grams valued at Rs. 15,63,790/- was not established to be a foreign gold and that Respondent had purchased it legally and therefore the Tribunal had allowed the appeal. 5. It is also on record that the Department had gone to Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the said order dated 16.11.2022 of the Tribunal, wherein, after hearing the Counsel for the Revenue as well as the Respondent, it w....