JUDGMENT
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. This application for stay of the operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is filed by Revenue. The issue before the Commissioner (A) was whether the goods imported by the present respondents are bona fide baggage are not for availing duty consumption under Notification No. 137/90-Cus., 20-3-1990. He held that the department was not in position to categorically say that the goods brought as baggage were not in possession of the passenger before he left for India. The Revenue’s case is that the goods brought as baggage are not bona fide baggage of the passenger; that under Clause 8(1) of the Baggage Rules clearly states that the benefit of duty free clearance can be given to bona fide baggage only; that the respondents was not financially well if in Dubai and therefore could not have acquired or purchased the costly electronic items and other goods by him.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Ld. Advocate for the respondents raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeal is not maintainable as it does not consist of a review order against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). We reject this preliminary objection as the Commissioner himself is the appellant in this case. We proceed to deal with the stay application. The impugned goods were brought by the passenger and the evidence prima facie suggest that they were in his possession before he left for India. Since the ownership of the goods is not a criteria for determining the eligibility to TR concession, we hold that there is no prima facie case for staying the order of the lower appellate authority. We accordingly reject the application for stay.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)