9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit, invocation of bank guarantees by the Revenue before appeal remedy exhausted, justification of stopping clearances by the Revenue, provisional assessments and duty payment requirements, ad interim stay and direction to Revenue, differential duty payment under protest, clarification on Bank Guarantee invocation, procedure for fresh clearances. Analysis: The appellants filed stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit, as the Revenue was proceeding to stop their clearances. The learned JDR argued that the issue was covered against the appellants by a previous Tribunal judgment. However, the appellants contended that they had furnished bank guarantees, and if invoked, it would cause severe hardship. They were also pressurized for subsequent clearances and were paying differential duty under protest. The Tribunal found the Revenue's actions unjustified, granting an ad interim stay and directing the Revenue not to stop clearances until the appeal remedy was exhausted. The Revenue argued that all assessments were provisional, and duty payment was required upon finalization, justifying the invocation of the Bank Guarantee. However, the Tribunal, after careful consideration, ruled in favor of the appellants. It directed the Commissioner to file comments on the stay applications and clarified that the Revenue should await the order on the stay petition before invoking the Bank Guarantee. The appellants were allowed to clear fresh consignments by paying differential duty under protest, and the clearance was not to be stopped. In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appellants' prayer for ad interim stay and directed the Revenue to refrain from stopping clearances prematurely. It emphasized the importance of following due process and awaiting the outcome of the appeal remedy before taking drastic actions like invoking bank guarantees. The procedure for clearing fresh consignments under protest was outlined, ensuring the appellants' business operations were not unduly disrupted. The stay applications were scheduled for a hearing on a specified date, providing a clear timeline for further proceedings.
|
