9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in- Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-PREV-APP-1287 & 1288/2021-22 dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III modifying the Order-in-Original dated 05.03.2020 wherein 255.85 gms. of gold was ordered to be absolutely confiscated by learned Commissioner (Appeals) modifying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff Item No. 71081200 and held that the same were chargeable for customs duty @ 17.163% ad valorem. The Original Authority determined the assessable value to be Rs.8,40,467/- and determined customs duty of Rs.1,44,249/-. The Original Authority in the same order has set aside the duty demand of customs duty and interest thereon. The original authority further ordered confiscation of said gold and g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ped the demand of customs duty and imposed penalty in disposing appeal filed by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal stating that appellant has not made mandatory pre-deposit. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 128A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions made. I find that the original authority has set aside customs duty demanded and therefore, there was no customs duty demand in the original order if the goods were not redeemed. The goods were not redeemed. Accordingly, there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
