2014 (8) TMI 908 - AT - Customs

Stay application Repeated requests by the revenue for adjournments opposed by the appellant as Bank Guarantee was given for ₹ 6.5 crores and the same is kept alive which involves substantial costs - The stay order passed earlier by the Tribunal has referred to only the merits of the case as also to the clarification given by the DGCA - Held that - earlier vide Stay Order, appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the duty amount as a condition of hearing of his appeal. The subsequent miscellaneous order passed on the modification application filed by the assessee, rejected the said application vide Misc. No. C/14/10 dt. 18.01.10 but extended the period to deposit. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Hon ble Delhi High Court who set aside the same and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the stay petition. Subsequently vide Misc. Order No. C/191/10 dt. 12.10.10, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition un-conditionally, thus not requiring the appellant to deposit any part of duty or penalty etc., imposed upon them. Tribunal has referred to only the merits of the case as also to the clarification given by the DGCA. The Tribunal observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case we find it difficult at the Interim stay to insist for compliance of requirement of pre deposit of the amount demanded in the impugned order. In as much as the stay was granted based on the merits and not taking into consideration the fact of execution of bank guarantee and there are no directions in the stay order to keep the bank guarantee alive, we deem it fit to allow the release of the same especially in view of the fact that Revenue seeks final hearing of the matter only after the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court as discussed above - Petition adjourned.

Summary

Issues: Request for adjournment by Revenue, Unconditional stay order, Release of bank guarantee

Request for adjournment by Revenue:
The case involved a repeated request for adjournment by the Revenue, citing the unavailability of a special counsel. The appellant strongly opposed the adjournment, highlighting the history of adjournments and the inconvenience caused. Despite the Revenue's efforts to contact the special counsel, no valid reason was provided for the unavailability. The appellant argued for the matter to proceed without further delay, pointing out the expenses incurred due to a bank guarantee and referencing relevant legal precedents supporting their position.

Unconditional stay order:
The Tribunal's previous order granted an unconditional stay to the appellant, relieving them from depositing any part of the duty or penalty. The decision was based on the merits of the case and the clarification from the DGCA, not solely on the existence of a bank guarantee. The appellant requested the release of the bank guarantee if the matter was adjourned. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the pending Supreme Court decisions, decided to release the bank guarantee, as the stay was not explicitly tied to its maintenance. The case was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings.

Release of bank guarantee:
The Tribunal, after reviewing the stay order and the circumstances, allowed the release of the bank guarantee held by the Revenue in favor of the appellant. This decision was based on the fact that the stay was granted based on the case's merits and not explicitly linked to the bank guarantee. As the Revenue sought a final hearing post the Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to release the bank guarantee. The matter was adjourned to a specified date for continuation.