9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, inter alia, are that petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter called 'the petitioner') had imported 8 consignments of ball bearing involving customs duty amounting to Rs. 3.84 crore; on 28-1-1999, Customs Department i.e. respondent No. 1 detained one consignment of the petitioner by declaring value of Rs. 34.06 lac; in follow-up action, Customs Department on 29-1-1999 searched the factory premises of the petitioner and goods worth Rs. 2.02 crore were seized saying that petitioner has imported finished goods whereas in the bill of entry, petitioner had declared incomplete goods; Customs Department has also seized goods valued Rs. 3.82 lac from the godown of the petitioner; show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19-1-2000 and thereafter on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (216) E.L.T. 347 (S.C.). Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 3-10-2008 was pleased to remand the matter to the Tribunal to pass fresh order on the stay application. Learned Tribunal again was pleased to dismiss the stay application vide impugned order. 3. We have heard Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. HPS Ghuman, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. Bansal has vehemently argued that if goods seized are in the custody of the department then the pre-deposit of the penalty and duty imposed to maintain the appeal is not required in view of Section 129E of the Customs Act. 5. On the other side, Mr. Ghuman, learned counsel appearing for the revenue, has argued that by this time goods seized must hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing." 7. Having perused Section 129E of the Customs Act, we have no hesitation to hold that pre-deposit of the duty and penalty would be required to maintain the appeal when goods in question are not in the custody of the revenue. In the present case, admittedly goods were seized by the department and are in the custody of the department, therefore, pre-deposit of the duty and penalty imposed to maintain the appeal is not at all required. 8. Apex Court in the case of Bhavya Apparels (supra) in para No. 10 has held as under :- "10. We, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
