9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 112(A) and 112(B)(1) on one Shri Trilika Nandu (hereinafter referred to as Respondent). This penalty was imposed on the Respondent in view of his admission that he had purchased impugned smuggled gold from some person in Chennai and sold to one Shri J. Suresh in Vijayawada, which rendered him liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b)(i). In addition, an amount of Rs. 32,75,000/- was also confiscated from the Respondent in terms of Section 121 by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. Both the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and confiscation of cash amount of Rs. 32,75,000/- was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. 2. Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submits that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied on the judgments of the Tribunal dated 16.11.2022, where the Tribunal had decided the matter in favour of one Shri J. Suresh, who was also a co-noticee in the present appeal. The Tribunal has categorically held that the gold weighing 476.640 grams valued at Rs. 15,63,790/- was not established to be a foreign gold and that Respondent had purchased it legally and therefore the Tribunal had allowed the appeal. 5. It is also on record that the Department had gone to Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the said order dated 16.11.2022 of the Tribunal, wherein, after hearing the Counsel for the Revenue as well as the Respondent, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al has been upheld. 8. It is also not in dispute that the gold in question is the same in respect of which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal in favour of Shri J. Suresh, who was allowed to have received the said gold from the Respondent. Thus, once the gold is not of smuggled nature or prohibited, penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b)(i) would not be sustainable. Similarly, confiscation of cash under Section 121 would not be tenable. Moreover, the confiscation of impugned gold has already been set aside by Tribunal in the appeal filed by co-noticee Shri J. Suresh. In the light of the same, the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the said order of the Tribunal to set aside the entire order dated 24.07.2020 of another respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
