9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 124 - HC - CustomsStay - appeal against the order of tribunal directing to predeposit of rs. 25 lakhs - held that - paragraph 3 to 5 were the short grounds taken regarding the merits of the case which had not at all been adverted upon by the Tribunal. Further, paragraph 7 of the stay application stated about liquidity crunch which the appellant would face. This has also not been taken into consideration. Tribunal was considering the stay cum waiver application and therefore, it was incumbent upon it to have dwelled into all these issues. Following the decision in ITC Ltd. 2003 (10) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD , stay order set aside - matter remanded back to tribunal for fresh consideration.
Issues:
Appeal against Customs Tribunal's order for deposit in Customs Act case. Analysis: The appeal was filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 12.10.2012. The Tribunal had partially allowed the stay cum waiver application, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs within eight weeks, while waiving the remaining amount and staying the collection during the appeal. The appellant had admitted to exporting goods under false declaration, leading to confiscation of goods worth Rs. 27 crores and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged the order on various grounds, including denial of cross-examination, non-compliance with Principles of Natural Justice, and the potential dual usage of the goods. Additionally, the appellant cited extreme liquidity crunch due to the blocked goods as a reason for seeking waiver of the pre-deposit amount. The Tribunal's order was challenged on the basis that it did not consider the merits of the case, the appellant's strong prima facie case, and the financial hardship faced by the appellant. The appellant relied on previous court decisions emphasizing the need to consider the appellant's case, balance of convenience, and financial hardship. The respondent justified the Tribunal's order, stating that the confiscated goods cannot serve as security for the penalty and that the offence was of a serious nature. The High Court observed that the Tribunal failed to address the merits of the case and the appellant's liquidity crunch in its order. Citing previous court decisions, the High Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach, considering the appellant's prima facie case, financial hardship, and the potential for success on merit. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and the directions provided in the High Court's order. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing a fresh consideration of the stay application in light of the legal principles outlined in the High Court's decision and previous court judgments.
|
