1991 (1) TMI 310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sri K.C. Lahiri, learned consultant, appeared for the petitioners. He submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals on the grounds of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. He stated that initially they had pressed their case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded on the prima facie merits of their case when they appeared for a personal hearing before him on 7-6-1990. When on 19-7-1990 they received a common memorandum dated 17-7-1990 from the Collector (Appeals) directing them to pay the duty involved before 25-7-1987 and appear for hearing on 27-7-1987 along with the evidence of payment of the duty amount in question, they had requested for time to enable them to file a sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m in support of the value of the goods in question but the evidence relied upon by him was not admissible on the same ground. Their value was rejected and a higher value applied without disclosing the basis. He, therefore, pleaded that the stay prayed for may be granted. 3. Sri M.N. Biswas, learned senior departmental representative, opposed the prayer for stay. He supported the impugned order. The required opportunity to explain their case for grant of stay had been given by the Collector (A) and he had given them notice to pay the disputed amount and dismissed the appeal under Section 129(E) of the Customs Act, 1962 only on their failure to pay the duty demanded. Proper procedure had been followed and the present stay petition may, there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....situation, the dismissal of the appeals on the ground of non-deposit of the duty demanded giving them a short time of about a week was not in order. We, therefore grant the stay prayed for. 5. The facts of the case which have prompted us to grant the stay as stated above suggest to us to take up the appeals themselves for disposal on a limited question. This we are doing as we feel that in these cases grant of stay will be only a half measure, particularly as the authorities below feel Government revenue is due from the appellants and the final disposal of the appeals on merits may not be immediately practicable. As we have granted the stay only on the ground of denial of natural justice, we take up the appeals also on the same ground with....