9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and circumstances of the case, it was directed that the applicants should deposit 50% of the amount of penalty imposed on them in each case, failing which the appeal of the defaulting party will stand dismissed. The compliance was required to be made on 6-6-06. Admittedly, no pre-deposits have been made and the condition of interim stay order has not been fulfilled, as a result of which the appeals have stood dismissed. However, since these applications were presented on 2-6-06, i.e. before the last date for compliance and could not be heard before that date, we have considered the applications. 2. These applications are purported to have been filed under Section 129B(2), which by its nature cannot be invoked for rectification of mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside in appeal, the question of property vesting by virtue of confiscation cannot survive. Therefore, the goods in the custody of the department should be treated as under its control for the purpose of Section 129E of the Act and no condition of pre-deposit could be imposed. The said condition was, therefore, required to be removed from the stay order. It was also argued that there was no duty imposed on the present goods under the impugned order and therefore, the question of goods remaining as the security for duty, could not arise. The learned Counsel cited the following decisions in support of his contentions:- 1. M/s. Sridharan Diamond v. Commisioner of Customs (Airport), Calcutta reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 71 (Tri-Chennai) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant to redeem in each of the orders made by the Commissioners was not paid and the goods were not redeemed within the time prescribed in the orders. Therefore, the goods confiscated vested in the Central Government under Section 126(1) of the Act, obviously, subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of the confiscation order. The observation in paragraph 7 of the said order that goods can remain for security for duty was made to counter the contention that the goods should be treated as security for penalty. It is obvious that the confiscated goods could not be treated as security for penalty under Section 129E of the Act, in which the duty and interest in respect of goods and penalty levied are separately mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
