9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al exercising its inherent power to stay the order dated 30 November 2011 of the Commissioner of Customs or the redemption fine imposed therein - appeal itself would be listed for final hearing in the near future, we are of the view that the interests of justice would require that the respondent-revenue be restrained from adopting any coercive proceedings for recovery of redemption fine of Rs.78 lakhs till the final disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2014 - Mohit S Shah, CJ and M S Sanklecha, J For the Appellant : Mr. K. R. Bulchandani i/b. Kamal Co., For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Sonpal JUDGEMENT At the request of Counsel for the partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter alia on furnishing of bond. On 30 November 2009, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order in original holding that there was a mis declaration and misclassification of the said goods by the appellant. Further, the Commissioner of Customs confirmed recovery of Rs.1.06 Crores of duty in respect of bills of entry bearing Nos.245/311 and 516/400. However, Commissioner ordered that the other two bills of entry bearing Nos. 1060/314 and 1375/433 also be assessed at the higher rate of duty and further the said goods were confiscated with an option to redeem the same payment of a fine of Rs.78 lakhs. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed its appeal against the order in original dated 30 November 2009 of the Commissioner of Customs to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Consequent to the above order, the appellant realized that they had in fact paid most of the duty demanded subsequent to order of 30 November 2009 of the Commissioner of Customs, save and except for a sum of Rs.37,04,990/. In the result, appellant filed an application for modification of the order dated 17 April 2012 and sought dispensation of the balance amount of Rs.37,04,990/- for the purpose of hearing of the appeal on merits. 10. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 3 October 2012 withdrew its earlier order dated 17 October 2012 on the stay application filed by the appellant and directed the appellant to predeposit a sum of Rs.37,04,990/- for the purpose of entertaining the appellant's appeal on merits. 11. The appellant be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in terms of Section 129E of the Act, there is no requirement to predeposit the redemption fine for the purpose of hearing the appellant's appeal on merits. We find that no exception could be taken to the above view of the Tribunal. The stay on redemption fine would normally follow from a stay of the order being challenged before the Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to stay the order being appealed against before it is not under Section 129E of the Act but is in the exercise of its inherent power as an Appellate Authority. This power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. In this case, nothing has been brought to our notice to show circumstances which would warrant the Tribunal exercising its inherent power to stay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
