2004 (4) TMI 346 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred appeal due to delay in receiving the impugned order.
2. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in relation to a penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time-barred Appeal
The appeal faced a preliminary objection regarding being time-barred as per the submission by the SDR. The SDR contended that the appeal was time-barred since the impugned order was dispatched to the party on 4-5-99 and again on 10-2-2003, fulfilling the requirements of Section 153 of the Customs Act. However, the Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant only received a copy of the order on 29-7-2003 based on a direction from the High Court. The High Court's order directed the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Customs, to issue a certified copy of the order to the applicant. The Commissioner's office maintained dispatch records, but these were not presented before the High Court. The Commissioner's claim of ignorance was refuted as evidenced by the High Court's order. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, considering the date of receipt of the order on 29-7-2003, thus rejecting the preliminary objection.

Issue 2: Waiver of Pre-Deposit and Stay of Recovery
The Counsel for the applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning a penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The penalty was based on the finding that the applicant's seized truck was liable for confiscation. The truck, valued at Rs. 6 lakhs, remained confiscated by the Commissioner. The SDR opposed the waiver and stay application. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was directly linked to the confiscation of the truck and, as the truck was in the department's custody, the penalty amount was safeguarded. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery as requested, scheduling the appeal for a hearing on 1-6-2004.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of a time-barred appeal and the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a meticulous manner, ensuring a fair consideration of the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties.