TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Sri Raghu Hulikal, learned counsel for the respondent-Assessee. 2. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'), assailing the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru (for short, 'CESTAT'), in Final Order No. A/20078/2022 dated 03.03.2022. 3. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law: (i) WHETHER, under the facts and circumstances the CESTAT is correct in holding that prior to the Notification dt. 18.12.2019 bearing No.36/2015-20, the gold was freely importable by the normal importer in terms of RBI Guidelines by ignoring the Notification No.34/2017? (ii) WHETHER, under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent preferred a further appeal before the Tribunal, reiterating its contention. 4.2 The Tribunal, under impugned order, held that the Notification dated 18.10.2017 was not applicable to the respondent. The Tribunal, while considering the matter, formulated the following three issues: "(a) What should be the date of the import of the gold in the facts and circumstances of the case? (b) Whether the provisions of Notification No.34/2017 dated 18.10.2017 are applicable to the facts of the case or not? (c) Whether prior to the Notification dated 18.12.2019, the gold was freely importable or not? Issues (a) and (b) relate to the interpretation of Notification No. 34/2015-20, dated 18.10.2017, whereas issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned before it. 6. On the other hand, Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Raghu Hulikal, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the Airway Bill for transportation of the goods was issued on 17.10.2017. There is no dispute that the goods were lifted from Indonesia only on 19.10.2017 and reached Bengaluru on 25.10.2017. However, it is submitted that, in terms of Notification No. 34/2015-20 dated 18.10.2017, the date of shipment for the purpose of import has to be reckoned from the date of the Airway Bill. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contends that since the Airway Bill is dated 17.10.2017, the Notification which came into effect on 18.10.2017 is not applicable to the goods in question. It is u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia through consignment basis. (iv) By Post Parcel Date stamp of office of dispatch on the packet or dispatch note (v) By Registered Courier Service Date affixed on Courier Receipt / Waybill (vi) Multimodal Transport Date of handing over goods to first carrier in a combined transport Bill of Lading. 9. In the present case, the mode of transportation is by air. Where the transportation is by air, the relevant provision states that the date of the Airway Bill shall represent the date on which the goods left the last airport in the country from which the import is effected. Learned counsel for the Revenue reads this to mean that the date of shipment is the date on which the goods actually departed from the last a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terfere with the finding of the Tribunal on issues (a) and (b). Accordingly, we hold that no substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court. 11. The submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue insofar as it relates to the finding of the Tribunal on issue (c) merits consideration. It was never an issue before the Tribunal as to whether gold was freely importable prior to the Notification dated 18.10.2017. On a reading of the order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the order of the Appellate Authority, it is evident that issue (c) did not arise from the orders impugned before the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on that issue is, therefore, unne....