Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 20 February, 2004
ORDER Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The stay application is filed under Section 129E of the Customs Act seeking waiver of predeposit of duty and stay of recovery thereof confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Division-V, Vadodara wherein the said authority ordered the appellant to pay Customs duty amounting to Rs. 12,43,033/- the appellants were a 100% EOU. They imported certain capital goods/computers and parts thereof availing of benefit of duty free exemption under Notification No. 13/81-Cus. dated 9.2.1981 to be used in the manufacture of development of computer software. They however could not fulfill the export obligation and requested the Development Commissioner, Ministry of Commerce to permit them to de-bond the unit prematurely. Such permission was granted by the said Ministry subject to fulfillment of Central Excise formalities. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise worked out the depreciated value of the goods, determined the duty liability (Rs. 12,43,033/-) and demanded the same. The appellants went in appeal against this order to the Commissioner (Appeals) who disposed of the appeal confirming the order of the lower authority. This stay application is against the order of the Commissioner (A).
2. Heard both sides.
3. The stay application is dismissed for the reasons set out hereunder.
4. A stay application under Section 129A is entertainable only when the goods are not under the custody of the department. From the facts narrated in the stay application it is not clear as to who holds the control on the subject goods. Obviously they are in the custody of the customs authorities as the appellants have not filed an ex-bond Bill of Entry and cleared the goods. It is also not clear from the stay petition whether the bonded warehouse licence granted to the applicant is cancelled. We observe that in the case of same appellants the Tribunal held that the stay application is not maintainable (Order No. C-1I/335/02/WZB dt. 31.1.2002). We hold the same view.
5. The stay application is dismissed.