2013 (9) TMI 729 - HC - Customs

Interim Order Stay on Refund - Held that - The order was an interim order and final hearing was yet to be held - The grievance whatever appellant wants to raise, may be raised before the Tribunal - But presently there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal where refund of the amount had been stayed as per the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. Ufan Chemicals 2013 (5) TMI 703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - There was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CESTAT Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against interim order passed by CESTAT - Misinterpretation of legal ratio - Validity of review order signatures - Application of mind by lower authorities - Justification of impugned order by opposite party - Stay of refund amount - Final hearing pending - Sustaining of CESTAT order.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against an interim order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. The appellant, a registered importer engaged in the import business of garments, was intercepted by Customs officers in 2010 leading to a demand for custom duty. The Commissioner initially provided relief to the appellant, but the department filed appeals before CESTAT, leading to a stay on refund payment pending appeal disposal.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that CESTAT misinterpreted a legal ratio from a previous case and highlighted discrepancies in the review order signatures. The counsel contended that the decision-making process of the lower authorities lacked proper application of mind. The appellant requested setting aside of the impugned order.

On the other hand, the opposite party's counsel justified the impugned order before the Court. After hearing both sides, the Court noted that the impugned order was interim, and the final hearing was pending. The Court found no infirmity in the order staying the refund amount based on legal precedent. Consequently, the Court upheld the CESTAT order and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court sustained the CESTAT order, emphasizing that the appellant could address any grievances during the final hearing. The Court found no reason to interfere with the interim order and dismissed the appeal.