Loading...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (9) TMI 967

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ein following substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellant-Revenue:- "(a) Whether, upon an order of adjudication having already been passed in respect of the seized goods, the jurisdiction to direct provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 could be exercised by the CESTAT? (b.) Whether the CESTAT is justified in directing provisional release of gold notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, without considering the statutory presumption regarding its smuggled character, the Respondent's failure to discharge the reverse burden of proof, and the restrictions prescribed by CBIC Circular No. 35/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017? (c.) Whether an order directing provisiona....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 16.02.2026 quashed the adjudicating order and remanded the matter before the Adjudicating Officer. 6. In light of the same, it is clear that on the date the Tribunal passed the order, there was no order with regard to the confiscation of the gold jewellery and gold items. 7. In light of the factual findings, it is clear that Question No. (a) that has been raised by the appellant is of no consequence whatsoever, as the order of adjudication had already been set aside before the Tribunal passed its order. With regard to the Question No. (c), it is again clear that since the adjudication of the show cause notice and the subsequen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; 2021 (375) E.L.T. 545 (Del.) wherein the High Court held as follows:- "51. The learned ASG also placed pointed reliance on Circular 35/2020-Cus supra, issued by the CBEC, para 2 of which absolutely proscribes provisional release of "goods prohibited under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other Act for the time being in force", "goods that do not fulfil the statutory compliance requirements/obligations in terms of any Act, Rule, Regulation or any other law for the time being in force; and "goods specified in or notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962". Mr. Ganesh relied on Agya Import Ltd10, which holds that para 2 of the said Circular was merely in the nature of a "general guideline", and did not incorporate any mandate. ....