TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order is nearly three years old. The Revenue should have implemented the department's order for fairness if they have not got any stay from any superior authority. I find the department's MA is frivolous and I reject the same." 2.On receipt of notice of the order of the appellate Tribunal dated November 16th, 1999, Union of India filed an application before this court under the Customs Act, 1962, Section 130A. After condoning delay, such application was admitted by order dated April 7th, 2003; the appellate tribunal was directed to refer to this court the questions of law arising from its order. In compliance with the direction, the appellate tribunal has since referred the questions and the application is awaiting hearing. At such stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 256, their Lordships said (in, para 38 of the report) "In an appropriate case, if the assessee feels that a stay of recovery pending disposal of the reference is necessary or is in the interest of justice, then the assessee is entitled to apply before the appellate authority to grant a stay until disposal of reference by the High Court or until such time as the appellate authority thought fit. But in case the appellate authority acted without jurisdiction or in excessive jurisdiction or in improper exercise of the jurisdiction, then decision of such appellate authority can be corrected by the High Courts by issuing appropriate writs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution." 6.The provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. In my view, the conduct of Union of India does not warrant such criticism as was made by the appellate tribunal. There was no scope to obtain stay from any authority, until the pending reference application was admitted. There was also no significant delay in making the miscellaneous application dated June 6th, 2003; for the reference application (CUSTA No. 2 of 2000) was admitted only on April 7th, 2003. To my mind, the age of the order could not be a relevant consideration for examining the merits of the prayer for interim relief, once this court admitted the reference application. 10.In my view, the Appellate Tribunal should have granted the relief to Union of India. The adjudicating authority found that the seized crystal glasswa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
