TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als), vide his stay order dated 9th January 2008 directed the appellants to deposit 30% of the duty involved in the assessment, in respect of import of old and used tyres. The said directed amount was required to be paid by the appellants before 15th of January, 2008. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph of the said order : I also find that prima facie the balance of justice is in favour of the revenue as the issue of classification of old and used pneumatic types is earlier decide by different quasi judicial authorities a different level of adjudication including Appellate stage. I also find it that revenue involved in the various cases is not quantified in the order in original. I therefore find that justice can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph continued on page 5, for the words stay from payment of redemption fine, penalty , the words stay from payment of balance duty, penalty may be substituted. As is clear from the above corrigendum, no time limit was given by the Commissioner (Appeals) to deposit the above amount. In any case, the appellants deposited 30% of the duty amount, in terms of the earlier stay order on 19th January 2008 itself, before receipt of the corrigendum by them on 24-1-2008. Subsequently, vide his order dated 14-2-2008, the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs rejected all the appeals for non compliance under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. We are not happy with the manner of disposal of the stay petitions and the appeals by the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es its significance. In any case, even while passing corrigendum, the appellate authority has not fixed any period for the appellants to deposit the amount in question. The corrigendum was also passed after expiry of the period granted by him in the earlier stay order that is upto 15 January 2008. We wish that the appellate authority should have shown some application of mind to the matter instead of passing the order in a casual manner and subsequently dismissing the appeals for noncompliance. At this stage, we also note that in any case, the appellants had deposited 0% of duty on 19th January 2008 itself and placed the particulars of such deposit in the office of Commissioner (Appeals) on 21st January 2008, as is clear from the above rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
