Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce & St, Lucknow vs Islahuddin Khan on 11 September, 2017

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Old Red Building, 38 M.G. Marg, Civil Lines,
Allahabad  211 001 

COURT NO. II

DATE OF HEARING/DECISION  : 11/09/2017.

Customs Appeal No. 70831 of 2016 (SM) 

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 437-CUS/APPL-LKO/ LKO/2016 dated 30/06/2016 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow.]

CCE & ST, Lucknow                                                     Appellant 

	Versus

Islahuddin Khan                                                      Respondent

Appearance Shri Gyanendra Tripathi, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the Appellant. None  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. _71029/2017 Dated : 11/09/2017 Per. Ashok Jindal :-

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) hold the order of adjudication that the gold which has been seized is to be released on redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and imposed penalty on the respondent. The appeal has been filed by the Revenue on the ground that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has fall in error by allowing to redeem the gold seized to be released on payment of redemption fine.

2. Heard the learned AR and consider his submissions.

3. As per Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 which has been reproduced herein as under :-

4. Only prohibited goods cannot be released on payment of redemption fine. Admittedly, the gold in question is not prohibited goods under the Customs Act or any other law in force.

5. In that circumstances, the goods in question cannot be absolutely confiscated in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) PK 2 CU/70831 of 2016