2008 (9) TMI 782 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Grants Interim Stay, Requests Explanation for Unfavorable Remarks

The Tribunal granted an Interim Stay, directing the Revenue not to obstruct clearances and production of goods until the final hearing. It also addressed ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Precedent Issues:1. Seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Allegation of high penalties imposed by the Commissioner despite a previous Stay Order.3. Request for Interim Stay and prevention of clearances by the Revenue.4. Unfavorable remarks made by the Commissioner against the Tribunal.Analysis:1. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant referred to a previous Stay Order issued by the Tribunal in their own case, which granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery. The matter was listed for final hearing on a specific date. The appellant requested the Tribunal to grant a similar waiver in this case as well.2. The appellant's counsel highlighted that despite informing the Commissioner about the previous Stay Order and requesting to wait for the final decision, high penalties were imposed. It was argued that the Department's actions were hindering clearances and production of final goods. The appellant prayed for the waiver of pre-deposit based on the earlier Stay Order issued by the Tribunal.3. The Tribunal acknowledged the submissions and opined that the Commissioner should have waited for the final decision in the appellant's case, as a Stay Order had already been granted previously. The Tribunal decided to grant an Interim Stay until the final hearing of the stay application. It was directed that the Revenue should not obstruct the appellants from clearing goods or impede production until the final disposal of the appeals. The stay application was scheduled for a final hearing on a specified date.4. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had made unfavorable remarks in the order against the Tribunal, using language that was deemed undignified and casting aspersions on the Tribunal's dignity. The Commissioner was directed to provide a personal explanation as to why the matter should not be referred to the Chairman of the Board for disciplinary action due to the unsavory remarks made in the order.In conclusion, the Tribunal granted an Interim Stay, directed the Revenue not to obstruct clearances, and addressed the issue of unfavorable remarks made by the Commissioner, emphasizing the need for dignified conduct in legal proceedings.