Appellant seeks Rectification of Mistakes and stay on penalty recovery after contradictions in CESTAT Order

The appellant filed for Rectification of Mistakes against the CESTAT Order, citing contradictions in findings by different Members regarding the redemption fine. They also sought a stay on the recovery of a penalty pending the ROM application. The Tribunal directed the parties to maintain the status quo, disposing of the stay petition and scheduling the ROM application for a final hearing on a specified date.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of Mistakes against CESTAT Order
Application for staying recovery of penalty pending ROM application

Rectification of Mistakes against CESTAT Order:
The appellant filed an application for Rectification of Mistakes against the CESTAT Order, citing contradictions in the findings by different Members. The issue revolved around the redemption fine of Rs. 15.00 lacs and when it becomes payable. The appellant argued that the redemption fine is not payable as per one Member's order, while another Member's order implied that it would be payable upon redeeming the goods confiscated by the Department. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the findings recorded by the Members and sought rectification based on these grounds.

The appellant also raised concerns about the lack of detailed discussion in the CESTAT Order regarding the arguments presented by both parties. Specifically, the appellant's counsel pointed out that the order failed to address the absence of confirmation of penalty or fine in the Supreme Court's judgment related to the case. The appellant referred to previous judgments to support their argument that interpreting the Supreme Court's order as levying penalty would require the addition or substitution of words. Additionally, the appellant highlighted errors apparent from the records based on previous Tribunal judgments and requested a fresh consideration of the matter on merits.

Application for staying recovery of penalty pending ROM application:
Simultaneously, the applicants also sought a stay on the recovery of the penalty of Rs. 2.57 crores pending the disposal of the Rectification of Mistakes (ROM) application. The applicants argued that they had already received a directive to deposit the penalty within a specified timeframe, failing which recovery would be made from the sale of attached diamonds. The applicants contended that the Revenue's interests were adequately secured as diamonds worth Rs. 4.37 crores were already attached, and property papers valued at Rs. 5.00 crores were in the custody of the Respondent. Citing a previous Tribunal judgment, the applicants requested that coercive steps be halted until the ROM application was resolved.

During the hearing, the Consultant representing the Revenue supported the Tribunal's order and argued against any interference. After considering both parties' arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal directed the parties to maintain the status quo in the matter. The stay petition was disposed of accordingly, and the ROM application was scheduled for final hearing on a specified date, with a notice to be issued accordingly.

---