TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. However, on personal search of the appellant, a yellow coloured metal chain and a yellow coloured metal Kada suspected to be of gold concealed on the body of the appellant was recovered. The government approved valuer certified that both the items are made up of gold and reported the weight of the Chain and Kada as 124.00 grams and 100.00 grams respectively total valuing at Rs. 11,71,520/-. As the impugned foreign origin gold, not being bonafide in nature as baggage was illegally brought into India in concealment without making any declaration to this effect under Customs Act in the aforesaid manner contravening the provisions of Section 77 & 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Baggage Rules, 2016, it appeared that the recovered gold w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such order- (a) ----------------------- (b) an order passed by the "Commissioner (Appeals)] under section 128A; (c) ----------------------------- (d) -------------------------------- [PROVIDED that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to,- (a) any goods imported or exported as baggage; (b) ------------------------------- (c) ---------------------------------" 4.4 At Sl. No.5 of appeal preamble of Order-in-Appeal No.261Cus/Appl/LKO/2024 dated 22/04/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & CG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2350;ें उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 129 डी डी में निहित प्रावधान को देखा जाए।" 4.5 Thus the appeal before CESTAT in the present case is not maintainable. Similar view has been expressed in the following cases: ⮚ Ashok Kumar [2000 (124) E.L.T. 770 (Tribunal)] ⮚ Mahabubunissa [Mumbai bench Final Order No. A/8526785268/2025 dated 17.02.2025 in Customs Appeal No. 85903 & 85904 OF 2022] 4.6 In the case of Ahamed Gani Natchiar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the time prescribed as per law. None of this was done. No hearing was also granted. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court has already held in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs, 2025:DHC:751-DB that oral waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing in a standard form would not be in accordance with law. The observations in the said judgement are set out below: "12. The Court has considered the matter. The main plank of the Respondent's submission is on the basis of the Standard Printed Form which is titled Green Channel Violation (Request for Release of Detained Goods) which has been extracted hereinabove. 13. A perusal of the above would show that in Printed Form, the following has been included....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given a notice in [writing with the prior approval of the officer of Customs not below the rank of [an Assistant Commissioner of Customs], informing] him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be oral. [Provided further that notwithstanding issue of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be considered or deemed to be an oral SCN, in compliance with Section 124. The SCN in the present case is accordingly deemed to have not been issued and thus the detention itself would be contrary to law. The order passed in original without issuance of SCN and without hearing the Petitioner, is not sustainable in law. The Order-in-Original dated 29th November, 2024 is accordingly set aside." 8. Though the Petitioner ought to have disclosed the fact that he had submitted the documents in response to email dated 20th February, 2024, in a belated manner, however, the fact that show cause notice was not issued in this case cannot be ignored by the Court. 9. Following the decision in Amit Kumar (supra) the detention of the....