9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive other exactly similar appeals have been preferred by the revenue being Custom Appeal Nos. 2/2020, 3/2020, 4/2020, 5/2020 and 6/ 2020 against Ms. Disha Tulsiani, Sri Nirmal Tulsiani and Sri Ashok Kumar Talhani. 3. The transaction giving rise to six appeals has remained one. 3.5 kg. of gold bars valued at Rs. 1,03,25,000/- initially seized by the Custom Authority. Later, they were confiscated by order dated 29.03.2018 passed by the adjudicating Authority. The respondents/assessees carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals. Vide order dated 11.01.2019, the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, GST & Central Excise allowed the three appeals filed by Ms. Disha Tulsiani, Sri Nirmal Tulsiani and Sri Ashok Kumar Talhani. It obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th signatures of the beneficiaries and the executor Shri Ashok Kumar Tahlani. The said Will which was executed in the year 2005 was duly Notarized and stand probated also. Revenue has not established that the Will produced before them was a fraud or a fake document. Except referring to the fact that original copy of the Will was not produced and there was no stamp number on the stamp paper etc., they have not, by concrete evidence, proved that the Will produced before the authorities was a fabricated one. No investigations, no enquiries stand made from the Notary, who Notarized the Will or from the office of the District Magistrate, where the same was probated. As such we are of the view that Revenue's endeavor to discard the said Will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redemption, no longer survives. Accordingly the same are rejected. 5. In such circumstances, present appeals have been preferred raising following questions of law :- 1. Whether the CESTAT is justified in law in setting aside confiscation of seized foreign origin gold bars weighing 3.5 kg. valued at Rs. 1,03,25,000/- made under the provisions of Section 111 (d) and Section 111 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 without reversing the findings of fact recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in the order in original dated 29.03.2018 ?" 2. "Whether the CESTAT is justified in not appreciating the admitted fact that 1 gold bar and 1 cut gold piece bearing engraving of Nadir Metal Refinery, Istanbul (Estd. in the year 2006) and Al Etihad Gold, Dubai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Monetary Limit 1 SUPREME COURT Rs. 2 Crore 2 HIGH COURTS Rs. 1 Crore 3 CESTAT Rs. 50 Lakh 2. Adverse judgements relating to the following should be contested irrespective of the amount involved: a) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge; b) Where Notification/Instruction/Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires; c) Classification and refund issues which are of legal and/or recurring nature. 3. Withdrawal process in respect of pending cases in above forums, as per the above revised limits, will follow the current practice that is being followed for the withdrawal of cases from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and CESTAT." 7. Thus it is litigation policy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
