1995 (8) TMI 136 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of reference application against an interlocutory order under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Classification of imported goods and its impact on the reference application.
3. Compliance with the stay order and implications on the appeal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application by the appellant seeking to refer questions of law arising from Stay Order No. S-86/94-D and Misc. Order No. 26/95-D. The appellant, represented by the Managing Director, filed the reference application, emphasizing the legal nature of the questions proposed. The issue arose when the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit the duty demanded, which the appellant failed to comply with despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal considered the submissions and highlighted that the reference application was not maintainable against an interlocutory order under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The involvement of the classification of imported goods further rendered the application not maintainable due to the nature of the questions at hand.

The Tribunal noted that no final order had been passed under Section 129B of the Customs Act, and the appeal was still pending, with only an interlocutory Stay Order issued. As per Section 130, a reference application is not permissible for orders not passed under Section 129B, and the application in question did not fall within the purview of the Act. Additionally, the exclusion under Section 130 for reference applications related to the determination of customs duty rates or goods' value for assessment further solidified the inadmissibility of the present application. Thus, the Tribunal held the reference application as not maintainable, refraining from delving into the merits of the alleged questions of law.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the appeal liable for dismissal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, citing precedents where non-compliance with stay orders led to dismissal. Despite prior warnings, the appellant failed to adhere to the stay order requirements. However, in the interest of justice, a final opportunity was granted to the appellant to deposit the amount by a specified date, failing which the appeal would be deemed dismissed without further notice. The judgment underscored the importance of compliance with tribunal orders and the consequences of non-compliance on the appeal's fate.