1992 (9) TMI 206 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Madurai
- Imposition of penalties and duty on the appellants
- Prima facie case on merits for the applicants
- Detention of goods by Revenue authorities during pendency of appeal
- Compliance with terms of stay order by Revenue authorities

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, along with three stay applications. The appellants, represented by Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, argued that penalties were unjustly imposed on the concern and individuals, and duty was demanded. They highlighted that the Tribunal had previously ruled in their favor on similar facts and requested a stay. On the other hand, Shri Ram Parkash, representing the respondents, relied on the lower authority's order and opposed the stay. The Tribunal, comprising S/Shri Harish Chander and P.K. Kapoor, found the facts similar to a previous order and noted that no appeal was filed by the Revenue. Considering the prima facie merit of the case, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalties, directing a halt on recovery proceedings by Revenue authorities during the appeal.

The Tribunal criticized the Revenue authorities for detaining goods despite pending appeals and stays. Citing a Bombay High Court case, the Tribunal emphasized the impropriety of encashing bank guarantees prematurely. In line with the High Court's ruling, the Tribunal ordered the immediate release of the detained machinery items. This decision was made using inherent powers, referring to a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the stay applications were allowed, and the Revenue authorities were instructed to adhere to the terms of the stay order, emphasizing compliance with the directives issued by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, addressed the issues of penalties, duty imposition, stay applications, and the detention of goods by Revenue authorities during the pendency of appeals. The Tribunal granted relief to the appellants based on the prima facie merit of their case, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring fair treatment during the appellate process.