9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 102 - AT - CustomsSeeking stay of the order of the adjudicating authority - communication of appeal - Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT - The appellant had complied with the provisions of Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 while filing the appeal before this forum challenging the impugned order dated 8th September 2020. Learned Advocate is fair enough to submit that no communication, after filing this appeal before this forum, has been received from the department. Since the law on the subject is very clear, which is also evident from the circular issued by the Board, we find no reason to intervene at this stage as prayed by the appellant. The appellant is free to approach this Tribunal as and when any cause of action arise. Application dismissed.
Issues:
Application for stay of order of the adjudicating authority under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 during pendency of appeal before the Tribunal. Analysis: The appellant filed an application seeking a stay of the order of the adjudicating authority under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 pending the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant's Senior Advocate argued that they had filed the appeal against the adjudicating authority's order on 7th December 2020 and had complied with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for Revenue referred to a Board's circular dated 16th September 2014, stating that no coercive action could be initiated during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, making the application for stay not maintainable. The Tribunal, comprising HON’BLE DR D M MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL), carefully considered the arguments from both sides. It was noted that the appellant had indeed complied with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 while filing the appeal challenging the impugned order dated 8th September 2020. The Senior Advocate for the appellant acknowledged that no communication had been received from the department after filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the law on the subject was clear, as evidenced by the circular issued by the Board, which stated that no coercive action could be taken during the appeal's pendency before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to intervene at that stage and rejected the Miscellaneous Application for stay of the order. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for stay, allowing the appellant to approach the Tribunal when a cause of action arises in the future. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the procedural rules and relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, while also highlighting the significance of relevant circulars issued by the Board in determining the course of action during the pendency of appeals before the Tribunal.
|
