9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erim stay and another for fixing a date for final hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal fixed 11.03.2020 as the date for final hearing of the appeal and therefore, the appellant withdrew the application for grant of interim stay. However, it is stated that due to want of coram and prevalence of Covid-19 Pandemic situation, the appeal could not be taken up for hearing on the date fixed by the Tribunal. The appellant has filed the instant application for restoration of the application for interim stay by stating that the department is attempting to implement the order-in-original (denovo) No.64397/2018 dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority on 25.04.2019, notwithsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... san Infracore Co. Ltd., South Korea. The supplier being related company, the correctness of the declared value was examined by the Special Valuation Branch. After considering the documentary evidence, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order-in-original No.7731/2008 dated 4.6.2008 holding that the price declared was on par with contemporaneous imports made by unrelated buyers and therefore concluded that the declared price was the transaction value in terms of Rule 3(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appellant company also imported similar goods, which were also subjected to scrutiny and ultimately, order-in-original dated 05.03.2010 was passed holding that the profit margin was normal and reasonable and there was no flow back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g aside the order dated 04.06.2014 and directed the adjudicating authority to revisit the issue and also ordered to collect extra duty deposit @ 5% equivalent of the value of the goods. 4. As against the order dated 30.01.2015 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order No. 42209 of 2017 dated 20.09.2017, directed the adjudicating authority to collect extra duty deposit at the rate of 1% of the value. Inspite of the order dated 20.09.2017 of the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SVB) passed an order-in-original (de novo) No.64397 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 holding that the royalty amount shown to have been paid during the financial year 2012-13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Whether the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction by refusing to stay the operation of the impugned order-in-appeal C.Cus.II No.338/2019 dated 25.04.2019, which has confirmed the order-in-original (denovo) No.64397/2018 dated 11.07.2018 passed by the original adjudicating authority? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is empowered in terms of Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to stay the operation of the impugned order-in-appeal C.Cus.II No.338/2019 dated 25.04.2019, which has confirmed the order-in-original (denovo) no.64397 / 2018 dated 11.07.2018 passed by the original adjudicating authority? ' 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the stay applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the stay application was dismissed on the ground that application for fixing an early date was allowed and in view of the same, the counsel for the appellant did not press the stay petition. In the meantime, the appellant was importing further goods and continue to give bank guarantee. He would further submit that the appellant has already given up its right for obtaining stay by not pressing the stay application, therefore, they cannot seek for restoration of the stay petition and thus he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellant is pending for quite some time and during the pendency of the appeal, it is contended that the Department is seeking to implement the order passed by the original authority. It is also seen that the appellant withdrew the application for interim stay when the Tribunal fixed a date for final hearing of the appeal. Having regard to the above facts, as agreed by the counsel for both sides, in order to give a quietus, this Court issues the following directions:- (i) The respondent shall not make any recovery from the appellant till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Tribunal. (ii) The questions of law raised in this appeal are left open to be adjudicated between the parties in a separate proceedings. (iii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
