1993 (4) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Clarification on restoration of appeal and stay application.
2. Compliance with High Court directions.
3. Detention notice and clearance of imported goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Clarification on restoration of appeal and stay application
The case involved an application seeking clarification on whether the restoration of the appeal also restored all proceedings and orders, including the stay application. The applicants imported Low Ash Metallurgical Coke and faced duty demands after initial clearance by the Customs Department. The appeal against the duty demands was dismissed but later restored by a miscellaneous order. The respondents contended that the stay order automatically got vacated upon appeal dismissal, leading to a detention notice for duty payment. The Tribunal clarified that restoration of the appeal automatically restored all proceedings and orders, including the stay application. The Tribunal emphasized that once the appeal is restored, all related orders stand reinstated, and recovery proceedings are stayed during the appeal's pendency.

Issue 2: Compliance with High Court directions
The respondents initially raised objections regarding compliance with the High Court's directive to deposit a specific amount and furnish a guarantee within a stipulated period. However, after reviewing the correspondence and evidence of compliance, the objections were withdrawn. The Tribunal confirmed that the directions of the High Court were duly followed within the prescribed timeframe, satisfying the compliance requirements set forth by the court.

Issue 3: Detention notice and clearance of imported goods
The detention notice issued by the Customs Department hindered the clearance of imported goods, specifically furnace contacts from Belgium. The Customs authorities refused clearance citing the outstanding duty amount as per the adjudicating authority's order. The Tribunal highlighted that the restoration of the appeal encompassed the reinstatement of all related proceedings, including the stay order. Consequently, the Tribunal lifted the detention notice and clarified that recovery proceedings are stayed during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal criticized the Department's insistence on a specific direction for staying recovery proceedings post-appeal restoration, deeming it unnecessary and causing undue delays and expenses for the applicants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the application, clarifying that the restoration of the appeal automatically reinstated all proceedings and orders, including the stay application, and lifted the detention notice while emphasizing the unnecessary nature of specific directions for staying recovery proceedings post-appeal restoration.