2015 (12) TMI 1092 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty - Held that - Revenue has not referred to any provisions of law under which it seeks stay of the order. We find that w.e.f. 6/8/2014 Section 129 E of the Customs Act was amended. Prior to this date Section 129 E provided that where in particular case the appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty, penalty, etc. would cause undue hardship to a person, the appellate Tribunal cannot dispense with such deposit under condition to be satisfied. However, from 6/8/2014 there is no provision under new Section 129 E that provides for stay by the Tribunal against order of the Commissioner or Commissioner(Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

The dispute involved a classification matter with a differential duty demand of Rs. 9,49,119. The adjudicating authority imposed confiscation, fine, and penalty, which the Commissioner (Appeals) did not uphold. The Revenue filed an appeal seeking a stay of the order, but the Tribunal dismissed the stay application as there was no provision for it under the Customs Act post an amendment on 6/8/2014.