9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs sought by the appellant. 2. Confiscation and sale of imported goods worth more than Rs. 30 lakhs for a paltry sum of Rs. 20,000 before the impugned order was passed. 3. Irregular procedure followed by the revenue in selling goods through auction while assessments were pending. Analysis: 1. The appellant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs, having already deposited Rs. 25,000. The imported machinery parts were valued at over Rs. 28,26,001, but the department reduced the value. The Commissioner then confiscated the goods without redemption, which was contested as unlawful. The revenue auctioned the goods for Rs. 20,000 before the impugned order, which the appellant challenged as illegal. The Counsel requested waiver of the remaining penalty, reserving the right to recover the value of goods sold prematurely. The Tribunal found the submission compelling, noting the irregularity in selling goods before assessments were finalized. The appellants were entitled to redemption, which was denied, and the goods were sold for a nominal amount. The stay application was granted, allowing waiver and halting recovery, with the appeal scheduled for a later hearing. 2. The irregularity in the sale of goods worth over Rs. 30 lakhs for Rs. 20,000 before the impugned order raised significant legal concerns. The Counsel argued that the sale was against the law, especially as it occurred prior to the final order. The Tribunal acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case, emphasizing the impropriety of selling goods before assessments were completed. The appellant's right to redemption was violated, and the sale amount was deemed inadequate. The Tribunal granted the stay application, providing waiver and suspending recovery proceedings, allowing the appeal to progress in due course. 3. The Tribunal noted the irregularity in the revenue's actions, selling goods through auction while assessments were still pending. This departure from standard procedure raised legal doubts about the validity of the sale. The Counsel contended that the premature sale was unlawful, particularly without granting redemption to the appellants. The Tribunal agreed with the Counsel's argument, finding the revenue's actions irregular and not in accordance with the law. By allowing the waiver and staying recovery, the Tribunal signaled its disapproval of the revenue's conduct, ensuring the appellant's right to challenge the sale and seek appropriate recourse through legal proceedings.
|
