Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Tigrania Metal And Steel Industries vs C.C.E. And Cus. on 13 December, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1995ECR584(TRI.-MUMBAI), 1995(79)ELT158(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This application has been moved for clarifying to the Department the contents of the Order No. 214-15/93-WRB dated 27-10-1993 of this Bench, under which their appeal as well as stay application were disposed of by directing the Collector (Appeals) to hear the applicants on their stay application and thereafter if he chooses to grant stay, decide on the appeal itself. In other words, their appeal was allowed by way of remand in the above terms. Notwithstanding this order, it is now reported by the applicants that the department has construed that there is no stay in operation against the demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector and hence they were directed to pay up the amount, failing which coercive action would be taken. In this context, Shri M.H. Patil, the Ld. Advocate referred to the Supdt's letter dated 24-11-1993.
2. After hearing both the sides, when the appeal itself has been disposed of by way of remand with a direction to the Collector (Appeals) for deciding on the stay application and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits, the question of resorting to any coercive action for recovery of the duty amount adjudicated by the Assistant Collector does not arise. The Department has to wait for the outcome of the order of the Collector (Appeals). It is needless to tell these basic factors to the department, but, any how, since the applicant is put to a hardship, we are clarifying the above position.
3. Miscellaneous application is disposed of in the above terms.