2013 (10) TMI 183 - AT - Customs

Stay Application Bank Guarantee - Overvaluation of Goods Excess Drawback - Revenue was of the view that the appellants had overvalued the goods in order to claim excess drawback Held that - The bank guarantee executed by them had been encashed by the department towards the redemption fine and penalty and therefore, such amounts should serve as sufficient security for admission of their appeals and stay petitions may be allowed - The Revenue had not yet disbursed the drawback claim sanctioned and the bank guarantee executed by the applicant was also encashed by the department, these were sufficient for the purpose of admission of these appeals - Further, there shall be stay on collection of dues arising out of both the impugned orders during the pendency of the appeals Stay Granted.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, overvaluation of goods for claiming excess drawback, reduction of drawback amount, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, non-disbursal of drawback claim, encashment of bank guarantee, stay on collection of dues during appeal.

Delay in Filing Appeals:
The applicant filed applications for condonation of a one-day delay in filing the appeals. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered it proper to condone the delay and ordered accordingly.

Overvaluation of Goods and Reduction of Drawback Amount:
The Revenue alleged that the appellants overvalued the goods to claim excess drawback. The drawback claimed in two cases was reduced significantly by the Revenue after conducting investigations into the value of goods. The Tribunal noted the reduced drawback amounts and the imposition of redemption fines and penalties in both cases.

Non-Disbursal of Drawback Claim and Encashment of Bank Guarantee:
The applicant claimed that the drawback amounts sanctioned to them had not been disbursed, and the bank guarantee of Rs.2,70,000 executed by them was encashed by the department towards redemption fines and penalties. The Tribunal acknowledged these circumstances as sufficient for the admission of the appeals, allowing stay on the collection of dues arising from the impugned orders during the appeal's pendency.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the stay applications and disposed of the condonation of delay application, ensuring that the appeals could proceed without the immediate collection of dues.