Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants had made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeals in view of conflicting Tribunal decisions on the interpretation of the customs exemption notifications.
Analysis: The competing Tribunal views on the scope of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus., were noted, including the decisions treating the requirement as only pre-import and the contrary view treating the undertaking as post-import in character. The earlier decision was held not to be per incuriam, because it had noticed and considered the relevant exemption notification and the DGFT notification. Since the issue stood squarely covered by conflicting precedents and appeals were pending before the Supreme Court, the appellants showed an arguable case. The furnishing of bank guarantees also supported grant of interim relief.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of further recovery proceedings pending disposal of the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: Where competing interpretations of the same exemption notification create a substantial arguable case, and the earlier view cannot be dismissed as per incuriam, waiver of pre-deposit and stay may be granted pending appeal.