LAWS(MAD)-1993-9-80

INTEGRATED EXPORTS Vs. CUSTOMS EXCISE GOLD APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Decided On September 14, 1993
INTEGRATED EXPORTS Appellant
V/S
CUSTOMS EXCISE GOLD APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question that arises for consideration in these writ Miscellaneous Petitions is, whether the order passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 129e of the Customs Act, 1962, has to be stayed or not.

(2.) THE 1st respondent has passed a common order dated 16-4-1993 directing the petitioners in each of the writ petitions to pre-deposit certain amounts towards penalty. THEre is no dispute that the petitioners have preferred appeals to the 1st respondent against the order of the 2nd respondent imposing penalty under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and pending the appeals, the petitioners filed applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty. THE common order passed by the 1st respondent in the interlocutory applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit is the subject matter of the writ petitions.

(3.) THE petitioners would place reliance on a decision of mishra, J. , reported inaurelec Trustv. Superintendent of Central Excise. In that case, the learned Judge has given the following reason for interfering with the interlocutory order passed by the appellate authority :"it may, however, be noticed that in W. M. P. Nos. 12095 and 12096 of 1988, a learned single Judge of this Court on 27-7-1985 ordered interim stay of the impugned order and notice. THE interim stay has continued ever since. While the petitioner has been benefited by the order of interim stay passed by this court, the Revenue has suffered for the reason that even the amount, which the petitioner is willing to pay as a condition for the appeal, has not been deposited yet. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner is willing to deposit half of the demand of the duty and for the other half willing to give security to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. This, in my opinion, may, in the circumstances of the case, protect the interest of the revenue on the one hand and give to the petitioner opportunity to contest the demand on merits in the appeal. It is almost as a concession and not on account of any error in the impugned judgment that I am inclined to order that it will not be in the interests of either party to allow the proceedings in this Court to continue any further on the question as to whether the pre-deposit condition should be waived and the case should be disposed of on conditions as follows: (1) THE petitioner shall deposit hair of the excise duty demanded within eight weeks from today and furnish security for the other half to the satisfaction of the Collector of Central Excise concerned. (2) THE respondents shall accept the said deposit as the condition for , the order to keep in abeyance the demand of the penalty levied and to proceed with the hearing of the appeal on merits. This, in my opinion, shall satisfy the interests of the petitioner on the one hand and the interests of the revenue on the other hand. THE petition is disposed of with the directions as above. No costs.'