2019 (8) TMI 1432 - AT - Customs

Stay of operation of the Order - issue is sub judice pending adjudication before a higher court - HELD THAT - The continuation order was already a subject matter of the Writ Petition in M/S. TRANSAEROMARINEIMEX SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHENNAI 2018 (10) TMI 1776 - MADRAS HIGH COURT against which the appellant has already suffered an order and hence we lack the jurisdiction in passing any order against the same continuation order ibid. This is also for the reason that the issue is sub judice pending adjudication before a higher court. There are no substance in the claim to entertain the above Miscellaneous Petition at this point of time filed by the appellant - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Stay of operation of the Order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII Commissionerate.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Stay of Operation of the Order
The appellant sought a stay of the Order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII Commissionerate. The appellant's counsel argued that they had filed a Writ Petition against the continuation order before the High Court and obtained a favorable order. Additionally, they had approached the High Court against a Show Cause Notice proposing to revoke their license, and the High Court had granted a stay of further proceedings. The counsel contended that due to these developments, the continuation order dated 10.09.2018 should be stayed. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative argued that if the High Court had already granted stays in related matters, there was no basis for the Tribunal to grant a stay. The Tribunal examined the orders of the High Court and noted that the challenge in the Writ Petitions was to the proceedings initiated by the Show Cause Notice. The High Court had granted an interim stay for four weeks in one of the cases. The Tribunal observed that since the continuation order was already under challenge in the Writ Petition, and the matter was sub judice before the High Court, they lacked jurisdiction to pass any order against the same continuation order. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's Miscellaneous Application, stating that the issue was pending adjudication before a higher court, and there was no basis to entertain the application at that point in time.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning for rejecting the appellant's request for a stay of the operation of the Commissioner's Order.