2025 (10) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or 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 the facts and circumstances the provisions of Paragraph 2.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ating 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 issue (c) pertains to a different aspect. 5. Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned Senior Standing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring 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 urged that both the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority committed an error in rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (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 airport in the country of export, i.e., 19.10.2017. According to the respondent-Assessee, however, the date of the Airway Bill itself is t....