TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench, at Hyderabad, in Customs Appeal No.30089 of 2022, (for short, 'the impugned order'). 2. Heard Mr. Vijhay K. Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (C.B.I.C.), for the appellant; and Ms.T. Niharika, learned counsel representing Mr. Lakshmi Kanth, for the respondent. 3. The whole case revolves around the prosecution case initiated by the Customs Department against the respondent under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, (for short, 'the Act'). 4. It is the case of appellant that on 06.05.2019 the respondent herein, an Indian Passport holder, was intercepted by the officials of the Customs (AIR Intelligence Unit) at the International....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Additional Commissioner Customs was subjected to challenge before the Principal Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax (Appeals-I). Vide order dated 24.09.2020, Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-CUS-000APP-062-20-21(APP-I), the Commissioner of Appeals affirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Customs, dated 30.11.2019. However, the Commissioner of Appeals set aside the order to the extent of absolute confiscation and permitted release of the foreign exchange to the respondent on payment of redemption fine amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, in addition to confirming penalty amount of Rs. 4 lakhs as imposed by the adjudicating authority. 6. The above order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 24.09.2020 was subjected to fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contended that the application for restoration itself was not maintainable at the first instance, therefore the decision of the Tribunal in entertaining the restoration application is bad in law; when the Tribunal had decided the appeal and dismissed the same holding it to be 'not maintainable' on account of existence of remedy of Revision before the Revisional Authority-Government of India, there was no scope left for consideration through a restoration petition; at best it could have been a case for review or recall, but definitely not a restoration petition; and therefore, prayed that there are no merits in the instant appeal and prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being aggrieved of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 24.09.2020, the respondent herein had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. When the matter was listed before the Tribunal on 21.04.2023, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. However, the authorized representative of the appellant-Department took a preliminary objection so far as maintainability of the appeal and submitted that the appellant-Department itself had gone in for a revision before the Government of India challenging the same order which the respondent had challenged in the instant appeal. Only on the basis of a preliminary objection raised by the authorized representative of the appellant-Department and basing on its content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejudice in fact had been caused to the appellant-Department by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Having restored the appeal it does not mean that the Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that the appeal is maintainable. The restoration is only so far as giving an opportunity to the respondent before the Tribunal to argue his case on admission which includes "maintainability" part. Though the Tribunal in its finding held that the appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that such a finding could not had been given by the Tribunal in a restoration petition since it would amount to technically entertaining a review petition by replacing the Tribunal's order and recalling the earlier order pass....