Commissioner of Customs Vs SKOT India (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that merely stating the probability of revenue succeeding in their appeal, is a bald statement which cannot be stated to be a reasonable plea for granting stay of order. Hence, stay not granted since sufficient cause not shown.
Facts- The respondents exported mango/guava pulp and claimed a higher RoDTEP incentive (2.5%) by allegedly misclassifying their products under CTH 0804 5040 / 0804 5090. The Adjudicating Authority held that, due to sterilization, the correct classification of the impugned goods would be under CTH 2008 9994/9999 as ‘other fruit pulp’, allowing only a 1.4% benefit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the issue classified the goods under CTH 0804 5040 and ruled in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by the decision, the department is now seeking a stay on this order.
Conclusion- Held that merely stating the probability of revenue succeeding in their appeal, is a bald statement which cannot be stated to be a reasonable plea and is just not enough. Every appellant is bound to have such a conviction on the probability of his success in the appeal proceedings. The proof of there being ‘sufficient cause’ is a condition precedent to the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by this Tribunal on a stay application and it is lacking in these applications. Some more homework needs to be done by revenue if such applications are to succeed and are not seen to be filed as a mere formality. Hence on balance it is felt that revenue has not made out a case for stay of the impugned order.
