By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JAN 03, 2015: THE Department is before the CESTAT seeking a Stay of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of decorated female figure (idol) with two hands and legs missing (52.5x25x26cm) which has been held as non-antiquity.

The lower appellate authority passed this order on the basis of the minutes of the meeting held by ASI, New Delhi which came to conclusion that the product which is stated to be antiquity is not antiquity.

Incidentally, there is more to the idol story-

++ An expert committee had given its report that the idol was antiquity on the basis of treatment of ornaments, eyes, nose, rounded face and drapery and that this female image in red sandstone is assigned to 10th-11th century. In respect of other two statues, on the basis of scientific examination, it was concluded that the patination/colouration is easily removed and is not patination of age& that stylistically the objects are a non-antiquity.

++ Against this order of the expert committee holding the idol as an antique, an appeal was filed before the Director General, ASI, by the respondent (art dealing organization) who (DG, ASI) concurred with the finding of committee. So, the respondent approached the High Court and the Court directed the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India to re-examine the articles in question himself or to get it examined by a competent officer nominated by him.

++ Thereafter, a special team was reconstituted. The committee after detailed analysis allowed one of the statutes as non-antiquity. However, regarding decorated female figure with two hands and legs missing, they maintained that it is antiquity on the basis of treatment of ornaments, eyes, nose, rounded face and drapery &this female image in red sandstone is assigned to 10th-11th century. The Minutes of the Meeting on re-examination of the objects held on 30 - 31.07.2012 reads:

After taking note of all these developments on record, the Bench held-

"9. Prima facie, I find that the argument made by Ld. Counsel is debatable in nature. Once a specialized committee have re-examined the matter and came to the conclusion, Commissioner (Appeals)'s view does not have finality in the matter. Considering the nature of the product has historical value, the product cannot be permitted to leave India till finalization of decision in the case. Accordingly, it is a fit case for grant of stay on the operation of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order."

The stay application filed by the department was allowed and the appeal was directed to be listed on priority basis.

(See 2015-TIOL-24-CESTAT-DEL)