SONI TEJASKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA VERSUS C.C.-AHMEDABAD

CUSTOMS Appeal No. 11028 of 2021-SM

[Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No AHD-CUSTM-APP-282-283-21-22 dated

30.06.2021 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD]

 

SONI TEJASKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA

VERSUS

C.C.-AHMEDABAD

WITH

CUSTOMS Appeal No. 11029 of 2021-SM

[Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No AHD-CUSTM-APP-282-283-21-22 dated

30.06.2021 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD]

SONI PRATIKKUMAR YOGESHKUMAR

VERSUS

C.C.-AHMEDABAD

 

APPEARANCE:

Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the

Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR

FINAL ORDER NO.A / 10021-10022 /2023

DATE OF HEARING:23.12.2022

DATE OF DECISION:05.01.2023

RAMESH NAIR

 

These appeals are directed against order in appeal dated 30.06.2021,

whereby the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order in original 2

C/11028/2021

C/11029/2021

passed by the Adjudicating Authority. In the order in original, Adjudicating

Authority has ordered absolute confiscation of one kadiwali gold chain

weighing 234.920 grams having market value of Rs. 7,78,055/-,and tariff

value of Rs. 6,89,608/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on Shri Soni

Tejas Kumar Patel in case of Soni Pratikkumar Yogesh kumar order for

absolute confiscation of one Kadiwali gold chain weighing 245 Grams having

tariff value of Rs.7,19,1988/- and market value of Rs. 8,11,440/- under the

provision of Section 111(d), 111(i),111(l),111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962

and also imposed penalties of Rs. 72, 000/- on Shri Soni Pratikkumar Yogesh

Kumar under the provision of Section 112(a)and 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962.

The aforesaid gold chains were seized from the appellant’s passengers at the

Airport after landing at Ahmedabad terminal of SVPI Airport. The preliminary

objection raised by Learned AR that since this is the case of passenger

baggage and order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal is not

maintainable before this Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction. He placed

reliance upon the following judgments:

 2017 (350) ELT 543 (Mad)- Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali Vs.

Commr of Appeals, Chennai

 2019 (365) ELT 630 (Tri.-Chennai)- Anees Fathima Bande Nawaz

Vs. CC, AIR- CC, Airport, Chennai-I

 2013 (290) ELT 125 (Tri-Ahmd)- Prakash Chandra Shantilal Vs.

CC, Ahmedabad

 2014 (310) ELT 390 (Tri.- Del)- Manish Kukreja Vs. CC, New Delhi

 2017 (357) ELT 577 (Tri.- Chennai)- Payangadi Moidu Mohammed

Ali Vs. CC, Chennai

Shri R. Subramaniya, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant submits that the appeal is maintainable before this tribunal in the

light of the following judgments:

 2020 (9) TMI 267- CESTAT Chennai- Ahmed Gani Natchiar Vs. CC

 2019 (370) ELT 590 (Tri.-Bang)- R N Palaksha Vs. CC

 2019 (365) ELT 442 (Tri.-Hyd)- Raparthi Durga Rao Vs. CC

 2017 (357) ELT 577 (Tri.-Chennai)- Payangadi Moidu Mohammed

Ali Vs. CC

 2013 (290) ELT 125 (Tri.-Ahmd)- Prakash Chandra Shantilal Vs.

CC

 2010 (252) ELT 212 (Tri.-Chennai)- GV Ramesh Vs. CC

 2008 (230) ELT 305 (Tri.-Mum)- Sapna Sanjiv Kohli Vs. CC

 2005 (186) ELT 440 (Tri.- Chennai) –Mohd Azeem Vs. CC

I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and

perused the records. I find that the appeal can be disposed of only on the

issue of jurisdiction without going into the merit of the case. I find that both

the sides have relied upon contrary judgments. However, as per the Hon’ble

Madras High Court judgments in the case of Payangadi Moidu Mohammed Ali

Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai-2017 (350) ELT 543 (Mad), in the

identical issue appeal does not lie before the Tribunal whereas the competent

authority is revisionary authority (Government of India). I, relying upon the

Hon’ble Madras High Court judgment, I am of the view that in the present

case, the appeal before this Tribunal is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the

appeals are dismissed as infructuous. The appellants have liberty to approach

the revisionary authority, Government of India with revision application.

(Pronounced in the open Court on 05.01.2023 )

RAMESH NAIR

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Categories:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *