9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected the appellant to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs within a period of eight weeks. Deposit of the remaining amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was waived and the collection was stayed during pendency of the appeal. We have heard Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.P. Kesarwani, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: - The appellant admitted to export 40 containers containing 1,000 metric tonnes of Muriate of Potash, declaring the goods to be "OWC" (Drilling Chemical Additives). On suspicion, the Customs intercepted the goods and subjected it to examination and chemical test and it was found that the goods were Muriate of Potash which is used as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had also stated in the stay application that it is in extreme liquidity crunch due to blockage of goods worth Rs. 27 crores and therefore, any direction to pre-deposit amount of penalty or part thereof, would cause grave prejudice and undue hardship to the appellant. The Tribunal by the impugned order had only held that the goods were restricted goods and were absolutely confiscated and once the goods are confiscated, they belong to the Government and they cannot serve as security for penalty to be paid by the appellant and further, the offence committed is of grave nature. Sri Pankaj Bhatia submitted that the Tribunal had committed an error of law in not adverting to the various pleas raised before it on merits, showing that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been taken into consideration. We may mention here that the Tribunal was considering the stay cum waiver application and therefore, it was incumbent upon it to have dwelled into all these issues. We may further mention here that this court in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) has held as follows: - "In view of the above, the aforesaid authorities make it clear that the Court should not grant interim relief/stay of the recovery merely by asking of a party. It has to maintain a balance between the rights of an individual and the State so far as the recovery of sovereign dues is concerned. While considering the application for stay/waiver of a pre-deposit, as required under the law, the court must apply its mind as to whether the appellant has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be reduced to nugatory/illusory. Undoubtedly, the interest of the Revenue cannot be jeopardized but that does not mean that in order to protect the interest of the Revenue, the Court or authority should exercise its duty under the law to take into consideration the rights and interest of an individual. It is also clear that before any goods could be subjected to duty, it has to be established that it has been manufactured and it is marketable and to prove that it is marketable, the burden is on the Revenue and not on the manufacturer. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that as the Appellate Authority has not addressed to itself any of the issues involved in the appeal rather has gone to the issue of financial hardship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
