9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demption fine of Rs. 30 crores. 2. Vide stay order dated 28-10-2003 the Tribunal after observing that the appellant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 10 crores and a further sum of Rs. 3 crores was deposited at the stage of investigation and a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 11.74 crores was furnished and the goods valued at approximately Rs. 37.60 crores is in the custody of the department, dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of duties and penalties and stayed the recoveries thereof. Subsequently, the appellants jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide its letter dated 5-11-2003 directed the applicant to stop operations of the machineries confiscated under the impugned order to enable the enforce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1982 and has the jurisdiction to deal with the issue of the seized and confiscated capital goods. 3. Shri Uma Shankar ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue strongly submits that the Tribunal does not have any powers to stay that portion of the Commissioner s order under which he has confiscated the capital goods. 4. We do not agree with the above contention of the ld. SDR. The entire order of the Commissioner is impugned before the Tribunal which include that part also vide which he has confiscated the capital goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 30 crores. In terms of the said order of the Commissioner such an option is to be exercised within a period of three months from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scellaneous Applications filed by the appellant seek stay of confiscation of seized goods and confiscation of plant and machinery, etc., on the face of coercive action by the Department. 6. Shri Uma Shankar, the learned S.D.R. opposes the applications and strenuously argues that the Tribunal s powers under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 are limited to dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal and that the Tribunal has no power under the law to stay an order of confiscation. He also cites the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. C.C., New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 to argue that the Tribunal is a creation of stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and penalty (and additionally pre-deposit of interest under the Customs Act) pending appeal. It is not also in dispute that there is no specific provision under the Customs and Excise law empowering the Tribunal to grant stay on order of confiscation. It is also now settled that unlike the superior courts created under the Constitution, the Tribunal being a creature of the statute does not possess inherent power or power to do complete justice . Moreover, no such power can be derived from the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules framed by the Tribunal itself, if the same has not been conferred under the statute. 8. Yet, the Apex Court and the High Courts have ruled that the Appellate Tribunal has the power to grant stay as incidental and ancil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
