1993 (3) TMI 203 - AT - Customs

Stay application denied as no duty paid by respondent, no refund entitlement. Tribunal rules revenue lacks basis for inherent power exercise. Procedural focus over legal arguments.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay application filed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, emphasizing that no duty amount had been paid by the ... Stay application by Revenue Issues:- Appeal against order passed by Collector of Customs and Central Excise- Inclusion of value of instructions documents, drawings, and design materials in assessable value- Entitlement to refund and maintainability of stay application- Interpretation of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962- Exercise of inherent powers by the Tribunal in granting stay applicationsAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Visakhapatnam against an order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. The dispute revolved around the inclusion of the value of instructions documents, drawings, and design materials in the assessable value for assessment purposes. The applicant argued that these elements should be considered based on the agreement with the supplier and Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Reference was made to relevant clauses of the agreement and a Tribunal decision in a similar case.2. The respondent, represented by advocates, contested the appeal, arguing that Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply as the appeal was filed by the revenue. They highlighted that the respondent had not paid the duty amount resulting from loading in the assessable value, negating any entitlement to a refund. The financial stability of the respondent was emphasized to oppose the stay application, indicating no danger to revenue. The turnover figures were presented to support the argument against the stay application.3. The Tribunal analyzed Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates depositing duty demanded or penalty levied pending an appeal, unless undue hardship exists. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs, and as the order by the Assistant Collector was set aside by the Collector (Appeals), no demand existed as per the latter's order. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court decision regarding the Tribunal's power to grant stay applications as incidental to its appellate jurisdiction.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application, citing that the revenue had no entitlement to a refund as no amount was paid by the respondent. The Tribunal held that the facts did not warrant the exercise of inherent powers to grant the stay application. The decision was made on the grounds of maintainability, without delving into the merits of the case, including the substantial case law presented by both sides.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the dispute over the assessable value, entitlement to refund, and the Tribunal's authority in granting stay applications under the Customs Act, 1962.