2014 (1) TMI 1343 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Search, seizure and confiscation of baggage - Attempt of illegal export - Non-compliance with Section 129E - Power to revise - Held that - Tribunal has the power of remand whereas the Central Government under Section 129DD does not have it. The scheme of law requires a remand of this case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on the baggage-related issue on merits. The scheme does not seem to foreclose or sidestep the Appellate Commissioner s jurisdiction to deal with the substantive issue on merits - Central Government does not have the power to remand the case to the Appellate Commissioner. The Government may revise an order passed on merits by Commissioner (Appeals) on a baggage-related issue. There is no revisable order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Matter remitted back - Assessee directed to make a pre deposit - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Jurisdictional objection regarding waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.
3. Interpretation of provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act.
4. Applicability of appellate and revisionary provisions of the Customs Act.
5. Consideration of stay application and waiver of pre-deposit.

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
The appellant explained a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal, which was satisfactorily accepted by the Tribunal, and the COD application was allowed.

Issue 2: Jurisdictional objection regarding waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery
The learned Superintendent (AR) raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case due to the nature of the appeal involving a confiscated baggage. The appellant sought support from previous judgments to counter this objection, emphasizing the relevance of the impugned order to the appeal.

Issue 3: Interpretation of provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act
The impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 129E, which required pre-deposit of adjudged dues before filing an appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 129E and previous judgments to determine the maintainability of the appeal.

Issue 4: Applicability of appellate and revisionary provisions of the Customs Act
The debate focused on whether the impugned order related to the baggage issue or the procedural aspect of pre-deposit. The Tribunal considered the harmonious interpretation of appellate and revisionary provisions to decide the appeal's maintainability.

Issue 5: Consideration of stay application and waiver of pre-deposit
The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit a specific amount with the Commissioner (Appeals) within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the need for compliance to enable consideration of the appeal on merits. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including jurisdictional objections, interpretation of legal provisions, and the procedural aspects of filing appeals and seeking waivers.