9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Collector (Appeals) should not have reduced the redemption fine to the level of 78% on the value of the goods as against 290% levied in one case and 282% levied in the other case and also the penalty should not have been reduced to the level of Rs. 50,000/- in each case. The prayer of stay has been sought till the final disposal of the appeal. The stay petitions were posted for hearing on 2-5-1997 and were adjourned at the request of the respondents. 2. Today when the stay applications were taken up we are informed that the Department has already released the goods in the case of M/s. Ketan Enterprises collecting redemption fine and the penalty as levied in terms of the impugned order and also on execution of bank guarantee of 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (e) 30% of the rest of the penalty as ordered by the Additional Commissioner with Bank Guarantee. (f) 70% of the rest of the personal penalty as ordered by the Additional Commissioner in personal bond and Bank Surety/Security. 4. We observe that the Department had approached for stay of the order of the learned lower authority. At the time when the stay application was filed these instructions were available and despite that the Department felt that the stay of the operation of the order of the Collector (Appeals) was called for in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Tribunal therefore listed the stay petition for hearing when the matter was thus pending, the goods have been released following the administrativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal for setting the term for release of the goods either pending disposal of the stay petition or the appeal itself. This having not been done we observe that the proceedings so far as the stay of the matter is concerned have been rendered by the action of the Department as infractuous. In the circumstances therefore we hold that since the Department on its own has chosen to release the goods the stay petition as it serves no useful purpose. We therefore dismiss the stay petition as filed by the Department. So far as the early hearing is concerned, since it has been urged that the issue is of recurring nature we allow the prayer of the Department in this regard and list the case for hearing on 14-7-1997. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
