2025 (9) TMI 1827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5. 2. I find that the appellant has filed this ROA within the prescribed time limit on 6th July 2023 which has been numbered as 30456/2024. The ROA petition was sought to be heard by way of e-hearing. The first hearing was posted on 31st July 2025. On that date, the Ld Counsel for the appellant sought the adjournment and hence the same was posted on 4th September, with clear instruction that on 4.9.2025, e hearing should be attended by him. 3. On 4.9.2025, he has appeared and argued his case for Restoration of Appeal. He has submitted the decisions of Supreme Court and High Court. As per the Ld Counsel, the appeal lies before the Tribunal, since the issue is that of seizure of foreign currency. In the cited case laws, it has been held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....above, we are of the considered opinion that while the expression "goods‟ as contained in Section 2(22) of the Act, includes baggage as well as currency, the exclusion contemplated under Section 129A clearly appears to be restricted to a seizure of This is a digitally signed order. The expression "baggage" as appearing in that provision would necessarily have to draw color from the provisions contained in Chapter XI of the Act. 17. The clear intent of clause (a) of the Proviso appearing in Section 129A(1) would appear to be intended to remove from the jurisdiction of the CESTAT only such matters which may pertain to violations of the Baggage Rules and declarations that are liable to be made in connection therewith. In any cas....