Appellate tribunal interim relief powers survive pre-deposit requirements, and refusal to consider such relief was set aside.

A tribunal's appellate jurisdiction includes incidental power to grant appropriate interim relief in proper cases, and that power is not excluded by the statutory pre-deposit requirement, which applies only to the duty and penalty under appeal. The Bombay HC noted that such relief should be granted sparingly, only on a strong prima facie case and where justice so requires. Because the Tribunal rejected the application on the mistaken view that it lacked any power to entertain it, the refusal was incorrect. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits, with the legal position clarified and the substantive merits left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has power to entertain an application seeking interim relief against redemption fine or permitting redemption of confiscated goods during pendency of appeal; (ii) Whether the refusal to entertain the application on the footing that the Tribunal was powerless was correct.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has power to entertain an application seeking interim relief against redemption fine or permitting redemption of confiscated goods during pendency of appeal.

Analysis: The pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 operates only in relation to the duty and penalty challenged in appeal and does not exclude the Tribunal's appellate power to grant appropriate interim relief. Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 enables the Tribunal to pass such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its orders, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice. The Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction carries with it incidental or ancillary powers to grant stay or other interim protection in proper cases, though such power is to be exercised sparingly, not as a matter of course, and only where a strong prima facie case and the interests of justice justify such relief.

Conclusion: The Tribunal does have jurisdiction to entertain and consider such an application for interim relief in appropriate cases.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to entertain the application on the footing that the Tribunal was powerless was correct.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on an erroneous understanding that no interim relief could be granted at all. Since the Tribunal did not examine the merits of the application and did not decide whether the facts warranted interim relief, the rejection could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The refusal was incorrect and the order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the application on its merits in accordance with the legal position clarified by the Court, while leaving the merits open.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate tribunal vested with appellate jurisdiction may, in proper cases, grant interim relief as an incidental or ancillary power, and such jurisdiction is not excluded merely because a statutory pre-deposit has been made under the appeal provision.

---