By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 21, 2015: THE Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Sahar, Mumbai is before the CESTAT with a stay application.

Revenue wants a stay of the order of Commissioner(A).

The facts are that in a classification dispute the respondent deposited differential duty of Rs. 9,49,119/- and the adjudicating authority apart from appropriating the same,confiscated the goods and imposed fine & penalty.

The Commissioner(A) set aside the confiscation and consequent fine& penalty by taking a view that the matter involved a classification dispute.

Revenue is aggrieved with this portion of the order and seeks a stay of the same.

The CESTAT while dismissing the stay application observed -

"3. We find that Revenue has not referred to any provisions of law under which it seeks stay of the order. We find that w.e.f 6/8/2014, section 129E of the Customs Act was amended. Prior to this date, Section 129E provided that where in a particular case the appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty, penalty, etc. would cause undue hardship to a person, the appellate Tribunal can dispense with such deposit under conditions to be satisfied. However, from 6/8/2014 there is no provision under new section 129E that provides for stay by the Tribunal against order of the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals). There being no such provisions in Customs Act, we find it appropriate to dismiss the stay application."

(See 2015-TIOL-2261-CESTAT-MUM)