M/s Kuldeep Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs Air Cargo (Export) New Delhi (Air Cargo Export)

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), IGI Air Port, New Delhi.

The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the Commissioner while deciding the appeal of the Revenue has passed the impugned order

holding that absolute confiscation of goods is legally tenable and to that effect the original order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable

however, while passing the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into consideration regarding the fine and penalty imposed in the

adjudication order in favour of the appellant herein, which according to the present appellant is beyond the scope and purview of the Commissioner

(Appeals)’s power to decide the appeal against the appellant. In other words, the appellant’s grievance is that as far as the redemption in the

fine and penalty is concerned, the predecessor Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28.10.2013 has decided the quantum of penalty that is

required to be paid by the appellant. Said part of the order has not been contested by the Revenue. Accordingly, the appellant’s submission in this

appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 has travelled beyond the scope and purview of his jurisdiction

and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Heard the Ld. Counsels for both the sides.

I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 in deciding the appeal filed by the Revenue, where the

grievance was for absolute confiscation of goods. So far as ordering for absolute confiscation, the impugned order to my opinion is sustainable.

However, since the Commissioner (appeals) has decided in the impugned order that the fine and penalty imposed in the order-in-original should stand,

and that very aspect has already been decided by the predecessor Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 30.10.2013 by deciding the quantum of

penalty that the appellant is required to pay, I am of the view that the impugned order to the extent of confirming the penalties is not legally

sustainable. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and I set aside the same and allow the

appeal in favour of the appellant.

Both sides agree that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for absolute confiscation of goods is legal and proper to which

none of the parties contest to that liability.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)