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 denies Revenue's appeal for stay as no provision under Customs Act post 6/8/2014 amendment.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Sahar, Mumbai Versus M/s. Parksons Packaging Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal seeking a stay of the order as there was no provision for it under the Customs Act post an amendment on ... Demand of differential duty - Held that:- Revenue has not referred to any provisions of law under which it seeks stay of the order. We find that w.e.f. 6/8/2014 Section 129 E of the Customs Act was amended. Prior to this date Section 129 E provided that where in particular case the appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty, penalty, etc. would cause undue hardship to a person, the appellate Tribunal cannot dispense with such deposit under condition to be satisfied. However, from 6/8/2014 there is no provision under new Section 129 E that provides for stay by the Tribunal against order of the Commissioner or Commissioner(Appeals) - Decided against Revenue. The dispute involved a classification matter with a differential duty demand of Rs. 9,49,119. The adjudicating authority imposed confiscation, fine, and penalty, which the Commissioner (Appeals) did not uphold. The Revenue filed an appeal seeking a stay of the order, but the Tribunal dismissed the stay application as there was no provision for it under the Customs Act post an amendment on 6/8/2014.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
