Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sandeep Nahar Versus Commissioner of Customs, Airport Special Cargo, Mumbai-III

2016 (10) TMI 860 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority - smuggling of gold - provisional release of gold - extension of period for issuance of show cause notice was sought for and the adjudicating authority came to a conclusion that the gold is liable for absolute confiscation. Whether such act of adjudicating authority justified? - Held that: - the adjudicating authority while passing order only for extension of period for issuance of show cause notice, made a reference and observed that the gold seized is lia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority - As regards the order for extension of period for issuance of show cause notice in respect of seized gold, the same stands intact. - Appeal disposed off - matter remanded. - C/87598/15-Mum - A/90679/16/CB, M/90680/16/CB - Dated:- 27-9-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri P. Paranjape, Advocate, for appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER In the present appeal, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the impugned order to the extent it rejects the request of the appellant of provisional release of seized goods. 2. The fact of the case is that 13 kg. gold was concealed in nine different parcels sent by courier company, M/s. TNT India Pvt. Ltd. The gold was concealed under the goods viz. school bags, pens, stationery items, gifts etc. In the present proceedings the only issue to be decided is that whether the seized gold can be released provisionally. The adjudicating authority held that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant. He submits that as per Section 110(a), any goods seized under Section 110 may be released to the owner on taking a bond with security. In the present case, the appellant undertakes to abide by the condition of bond and security, as the adjudicating authority may require. Therefore, the goods can be released on provisional basis. In support, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. vs. Metro Machinery Traders - 2009 (242) ELT 487 (Mad.), .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Ker.); (ii) CC, Chennai vs. Samynathan Murugesan - 2009 (247) ELT 21 (Mad.); (iii) Md Akhtar vs. CC - 2015 (323) ELT 136 (Pat.); (iv) UOI vs. Mohammed Aijaj Ahmed - 2009 (244) ELT 49 (Bom.); (v) G.V. Ramesh vs. CC, Chennai - 2010 (252) ELT 212 (Tri.-Chennai); (vi) Sheik Md Rafiqu Ahmed vs. CCE, Airport, Chennai - 2016 (331) ELT 337 (Mad.); (vii) CCE, Raipur vs. Manjit Singh - 2014 (303) ELT 430 (Tri.-Del.); (viii) First Track Traders vs. CC, Tuticorin - 2012 (281) ELT 23 (Mad.), (ix) CC, Chenna .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version