2021 (3) TMI 1254 - AT - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - foreign origin goods - confiscation - penalty - case of Revenue is that the said impugned order has to be stayed since there is ample evidence to prove that the respondent was in possession of smuggled gold - HELD THAT - No prima facie case made out by petitioner so as to grant stay during pendency of this appeal. If the prayer in the stay application is allowed it would be as granting the appeal itself which cannot be done at this preliminary hearing of stay application. The application for stay is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues:
Stay application filed by Revenue for impugned order of confiscation of gold and penalties.

Analysis:
The case involved a stay application filed by Revenue seeking to stay the impugned order of confiscation of gold and penalties imposed on the respondent. The respondent was found in possession of smuggled gold, leading to a case being registered against him. The original authority ordered the confiscation of 3.097 kgs of gold, deeming it of foreign origin, and imposed penalties. The respondent appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in favor of the respondent, setting aside the penalties and confiscation. The Revenue argued that there was ample evidence proving the respondent's possession of smuggled gold. The Revenue also cited relevant judgments to support their case, including judgments from the High Court and CESTAT Chennai.

The tribunal noted that the Revenue's arguments were based on the merits of the case, emphasizing that the impugned order had already set aside the confiscation and penalties. The tribunal found that there was no prima facie case presented by the petitioner to grant a stay during the appeal's pendency. Granting the stay application at this stage would essentially equate to granting the appeal itself, which was not appropriate for a preliminary hearing of a stay application. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the application for stay, deeming it devoid of merit.

In conclusion, the tribunal denied the stay application filed by Revenue, as it did not find a prima facie case to grant the stay during the appeal's pendency. The tribunal emphasized that granting the stay at this stage would be akin to granting the appeal itself, which was not suitable for a preliminary hearing of a stay application. The application was dismissed as lacking merit.