9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1073 - AT - CustomsROM application - validity of stay order - Held that - Stay Order has been pronounced after appreciating the submissions of both sides - Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. 2005 (4) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE has held that once the Tribunal has passed an order in connection with predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Tribunal cannot modify that order subsequently like an appellate authority. There is no justification for interfering with Stay Order dt. 07/08/2015 or modifying the same as there is no error on the face of the record - ROM application dismissed.
Issues Involved: Stay order requiring predeposit of 25% of confirmed demand against the appellant in connection with the valuation of imported flowers.
Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the Stay Order requiring a predeposit of 25% of the confirmed demand against them in connection with the valuation of imported flowers. The appellant's counsel argued that the dispute involved the valuation of flowers and that the invoices clearly indicated FOB values, requiring only a 20% addition as per Customs Valuation Rules. The counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in ordering the additional predeposit based on the freight invoices. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, considering the details of the invoices and freight invoices presented in the appeal papers. 2. The Revenue's representative highlighted that the Stay Order was passed after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the findings of the adjudicating authority. It was noted that the appellants failed to establish that the cost of freight reflected in the invoices was actually paid to the airway transporters. The Tribunal, after reviewing the Stay Order, found that it was pronounced after appreciating both parties' submissions. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, stating that once an order is passed regarding predeposit, it cannot be modified subsequently like an appellate authority. 3. Considering the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for interfering with or modifying the Stay Order as there was no error on the face of the record. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for review. The appellant was directed to comply with the Stay Order within one month and report compliance by a specified date. The order was dictated in open court on a specific date.
|
