TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into consideration. Arguments which have not been taken into consideration, as per application filed by them, are as under :- (a) That the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla could adjudicate upon demand relating to customs duty only, prior to 11-5-2004, and not those relating to demand of Central Excise duty. In the present case, the opponent inspite of his being a Commissioner of Customs, has confirmed demands and imposed penalty under provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thereby such confirmation of demands and imposition of penalties being totally without jurisdiction could not have been confirmed/imposed. (b) The applicant had not filed any bills of entry as an importer nor h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers were very much in existence. (f) The order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority in violation of principles of natural justice as cross-examination requested for by the applicant was not granted inspite of the request being made for limited number of persons genuinely required. (g) Apart from the aforesaid, it is submitted that the price of the goods sold to the buyers, as per the contracts entered into with them, was ex-Kandla Special Economic Zone. Thus, any liabilities arising subsequent thereto was not the burden of the applicant and therefore, no liability whatsoever could have been fastened on the applicant. (h) It is a well settled position that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the appellants would like the Tribunal to take account of the facts and legal aspects even during the consideration of stay application. What is required to be seen at stay stage is only whether a prima facie case exists or not, financial position of the appellant and balance of convenience with regards pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act relevant to the person. 3. I is (sic) also necessary to consider the provisions of Section 35F before proceeding further :- "SECTION 35F. Deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied. - Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic market in the guise of clearances to advance license holders and thereby evasion of Customs and Central Excise duty. Prima facie, the Tribunal found that customers who were supposed to have received goods were non existent, one customer who was said to have received substantial quantity of goods, stated that they had not received the same. Prima facie it was found that the appellant had made out no prima facie whatsoever. It has to be noted that the diversions have been supported by evidence. 6. However, one aspect which relates to jurisdiction is considered since it was omitted to be discussed. The appellants claim that prior to 11-5-2004, Commissioner of Customs, Kandla could not have adjudicated cases relating to demand of Cen....