TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation for release of the goods. The Tribunal, after considering the prima facie case and also evidence, refused to pass orders, as prayed for. The goods were imported and came to this country on or about 12.06.2013 and since then they are stored in a wherehouse. An adjudication order was passed and the first appellate authority confirmed the same and second appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal. This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT erred in refusing to grant stay of the re- export order confirmed vide order in Appeal No.08/2013(G)Cus, dated 06.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur? 2. Whether the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... He, therefore, submits that the appeal should be admitted and if necessary, it should be remanded for fresh hearing. Learned counsel for the revenue, on the other hand, says that the learned Tribunal has considered both the decisions of the Calcutta and Gujarat High Courts referred to above, but, according to him, those judgments have no manner of application and the Tribunal has followed its previous judgment in another matter. He argues that it is for the Tribunal to decide which authority and which decision will be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, just because of non-consideration of the judgments of the High Courts referred to above at the interlocutory stage cannot be a substantial questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw. Now we have to examine whether the questions suggested, as recorded above, are substantial questions of law or not. We have already stated that the Tribunal at the interlocutory application has not decided the appeal itself. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has come to the following prima facie findings: "We have carefully looked into the factual aspects. There is no difference between both the sides that the goods imported has underwent three phases of testing as stated aforesaid. We peculiarly notice that the last report of Central Food Laboratory was an outcome of the testing at the instance of the assessee resulting in acid value of 10.06. This handicaps us to agree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal has to exercise its discretion in granting interim relief. In doing so, well-settled principle of law is that prima facie case and balance of convenience have to be looked into. In our view, the Tribunal has decided on both the grounds. Some times the balance of convenience becomes the predominant aspect rather than a prima facie case. Here we find the contents of the acid value is exceeding 10% and whether palm oil can be treated to be food or not to be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal. It is also apprehended by the learned Tribunal that if the goods are released then there is no machinery to control over the appellant to carry out processing in the absence of post-importation obligation as suggested by the Central Food ....