COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Vs. SAMEER INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the present miscellaneous application filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, the prayer has been made to dismiss the appeals of various appellants, inasmuch as the Tribunals stay order has not been complied with by them. We find that vide order Nos. S/1010 to 1023/WZB/AHD/2007, dated 27 -3 -07 [2009 (234) E.L.T 676 (T)], the main appellant M/s. Sameer Industries was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and other appellants -applicants were directed to deposit part amount of penalties imposed upon them as indicated in the said order. Subsequently, miscellaneous applications for modification of the stay order were filed and vide the order Nos. M/1351 to 1364/WZB/AHD/2007, dated 18 -12 -2007 all the modifications were allowed except in the case of M/s Sameer Industries, M/s Raja Zink Pvt. Ltd., M/s Bhavana Metal and M/s Dhakad Metal Corporation. In para 9 of the said order, it stands specifically held that in respect of other applicants, their applications were allowed and the appeals will come up in due course. Subsequently, when the matter came up for ascertaining compliance on 12 -2 -2008, it was found that all the tour applicants in question have complied with the above order passed by the Tribunal.

(2.) SURPRISINGLY in the present application, though the Commissioner referred to the miscellaneous orders passed by the Tribunal modifying the stay order in respect of 9 applicants but no reference stands made to the contents of the said order. A prayer is made that the appeals should be dismissed for non -compliance, inasmuch as, substantial Government revenue is involved. We neither understand nor appreciate such prayer by the Commissioner for dismissal of appeals for non -compliance with the stay orders especially when the stay order as modified by the subsequent order stands duly complied with by the appellants and in any case, after passing of the stay order, the matters are listed for ascertaining compliance in routine course and if compliance is not reported, the appeals are dismissed. Such dismissal for non -compliance with the stay orders passed by the Tribunal is not depending upon the application made by the Department. We note that such application stands made by the Commissioner in routine course an in mechanical way without appreciating the developments before the Tribunal. The same is accordingly, rejected.