Jurisdiction in drawback adjudication and pre-deposit requirements were upheld for a DRI-booked case, with penalty recovery stayed conditionally.

An adjudication made by an authority expressly appointed under a notification to decide a specified class of DRI-booked cases was treated as within jurisdiction, and the challenge to the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction failed because the drawback appeal bar applies only to orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the jurisdictional objection was not prima facie acceptable and no merits submission was advanced on the demand, pre-deposit of the duty amount was directed. On compliance, recovery of penalties was stayed pending the appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional Director General (Vigilance) had jurisdiction to adjudicate the drawback demand and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against such order; (ii) Whether the applicants were required to make pre-deposit and were entitled to waiver of penalty recovery pending appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional Director General (Vigilance) had jurisdiction to adjudicate the drawback demand and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against such order.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had been appointed under Notification No. 106/2004-Cus. dated 23-9-2004 to decide cases booked by DRI, Bangalore, concerning the relevant group of companies, and the impugned order was passed by the Additional Director General (Vigilance) in that capacity. The objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction was also held untenable because the appellate jurisdiction in drawback matters is excluded only where the order is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objections were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants were required to make pre-deposit and were entitled to waiver of penalty recovery pending appeal.

Analysis: As no submissions were made on the merits of the demand, and the jurisdictional challenge was not found prima facie acceptable, the applicants were directed to secure the duty demand by pre-deposit. On such deposit, recovery of the penalties was ordered to remain stayed pending the appeals.

Conclusion: Pre-deposit of the duty amount was directed, and stay of penalty recovery was granted on compliance.

Final Conclusion: The stay applications were disposed of by rejecting the jurisdictional challenge and directing deposit of the duty amount, with conditional protection against recovery of penalties during the pendency of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication is made by an authority expressly appointed under a notification to decide a class of DRI-booked cases, jurisdictional objection fails, and in drawback matters the Tribunal's appellate bar operates only in respect of orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---