TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d appeal is barred by the first proviso to Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Learned Authorized Representative has submitted that Section 129A (1) expressly provides that no appeal shall lie to the appellate Tribunal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), where such order relates to a goods imported or exported as baggage. It is argued that the Tribunal is a creature of statute and cannot entertain an appeal in respect of a subject specifically excluded from its jurisdiction. In support of the preliminary objection, Learned Authorized Representative has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Shri Mohammed Dosri Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad - I [2025 (6) TMI 1827 - CESTAT Hyderabad]; (ii) Shri Ravinder Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi [2026 (1) TMI 439 - CESTAT New Delhi]; and (iii) Mr. Sunil Kumar Keswani Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow [2025 (10) TMI 1081 - CESTAT Allahabad] 4. Learned Authorized Representative has further relied upon Prem Chand Garg and Another Vs The Excise Commissioner, U.P. and Others [AIR 1963 SC 996], to contend that even the exercise o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide an appeal against an order referred to in clause (b), if such order relates, inter alia, to; any goods imported or exported as baggage. The proviso thus excludes the jurisdiction of the Tribunal only when the order under challenged relates to goods imported or exported as baggage. 11. There can be no dispute regarding the preposition that this Tribunal is a creature of statute and cannot exercise jurisdiction over a matter specifically excluded by the statute. At the same time, before declining jurisdiction, the Tribunal must first determine whether the particular appeal actually falls within the excluded category. 12. The mere fact that a seizure has taken place at an International Airport or that the person concerned arrived from abroad does not, by itself, conclude the jurisdictional enquiry. What is required to be examined is whether the goods were imported or exported as baggage and whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), relates to such import or export as baggage. 13. The appellant arrived at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, from New ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 77 and whether its manner of carriage amounted to concealment are matters which require examination on merits. 16. The allegation that the kada was earlier kept in the checked-in baggage is a disputed factual competent of the Department's case. Such an allegation cannot by itself, conclusively transform the entire proceeding into an order relating to goods imported "as baggage", particularly when the actual recovery was from the person of the appellant. If the Department's argument were accepted without qualification, every article found on the body of an International passenger, including an article worn as clothing or ornament would automatically become baggage merely because the passenger entered India through an Airport. Such an interpretation would unduly widen the statutory exclusion beyond the words used by Parliament. 17. In the case of Shri Mohammed Dosri, supra, the passenger was found carrying 55 gold biscuits concealed in his hand baggage after crossing the green channel. The goods were thus admittedly recovered from and concealed in the passenger's hand baggage. The Tribunal accordingly held that the matter was covered by the exclusion relating to goods impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven wide Constitutional or substantive statutory provisions. This Bench respectfully agrees with the open proposition that no Court or Tribunal can pass an order contrary to an express statutory prohibition. However, the said principle becomes applicable only after it is first established that the statutory provision is attracted to the case under consideration. The appellant is not requesting this Tribunal to disregard or override the proviso Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's submission is that the present case does not fall within that proviso because the gold kada was found worn on his person and was not recovered as an article of baggage. Therefore, the issue before us is not whether the Tribunal can act contrary to Section 129A, but whether the factual and legal conditions necessary for invoking the jurisdictional exclusion are satisfied. The decision in Prem Chand Garg, supra, does not dispense with this necessary jurisdictional enquiry. Similarly the proposition laid down in U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S., supra, that there can be no estoppel against a statute is unexceptionable. An assurance, consent or concession made by either party cannot con....