TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal lifts Stay Order, grants waiver on duty deposit, criticizes Appeals Commissioner, sets Bank Guarantee renewal deadline.</h1> <h3>RAO INSULATING CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> RAO INSULATING CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 28 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Recall of Stay Order due to absence of appellants.2. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount.3. Examination of evidence by Commissioner (Appeals).4. Interpretation of relevant notifications.5. Application of precedent judgment.6. Decision on stay application and renewal of Bank Guarantee.Recall of Stay Order:The appellants sought the recall of a Stay Order issued ex parte due to their absence, claiming non-receipt of the hearing notice. The consultant for the appellants requested the recall and a hearing on merits. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal recalled the Stay Order and proceeded to hear the stay application on its merits.Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty Amount:The appellants requested a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,87,562, stating they had executed a Bond and Bank Guarantee for a higher sum of Rs. 3,49,410. They were willing to extend the Bank Guarantee until the appeal's disposal. The appellants presented a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs identifying the re-imported goods. They argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly examined the evidence and referred to relevant notifications to support their case. Relying on a previous Tribunal judgment, the appellants contended that they were entitled to the benefit claimed.Examination of Evidence and Interpretation of Notifications:The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for not adequately examining the evidence regarding the re-exported goods. The appellants highlighted the differences in time limits specified in different notifications and how they complied with the export requirements as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (E.O.U). The Tribunal considered these arguments and found merit in the appellants' case, leading to the decision to grant the stay application and waive the pre-deposit condition.Application of Precedent Judgment:The appellants relied on a specific Tribunal judgment in a similar case to support their claim for the benefit sought. This precedent was crucial in establishing the legal basis for their argument and played a significant role in the Tribunal's decision-making process.Decision on Stay Application and Renewal of Bank Guarantee:After careful consideration of submissions from both parties, the Tribunal allowed the stay application based on the presented judgments and legal arguments. The condition of pre-deposit was waived, but the appellants were instructed to renew the Bank Guarantee for the specified amount until the appeal's final disposal. They were further directed to submit a report of the renewal to the Commissioner of Customs within a month, with the appeal scheduled for a subsequent hearing.
TaxTMI 