Ashok Kumar Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Ashok Kumar vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 19, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12150

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/12150
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Nov 19, 1997
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(97)ELT548TriDel

Excerpt

.....he submits that in this case the gold was confiscated absolutely and the value of the gold biscuits was more than rs. 2 lakh and, therefore, it was not within the jurisdiction of single member bench to pass the stay order. he submits that thus the stay order suffers from jurisdictional competence and prays that the stay order may be recalled.2. shri p.k. jain, learned sdr leaves it to the discretion of the bench.3. heard the learned counsel and the learned sdr. we note that the value of the gold biscuits confiscated absolutely is more than rs. 2 lakh, therefore, the case should have been heard by a division bench.since the case was put up before a single member bench and at the time of hearing the case the competence of single member bench was not questioned. hence the order. however, this being the case of jurisdiction, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel and accordingly recall the stay order. with the consent of both the sides stay petitions were heard.4. arguing the stay petitions, shri g.k. rana, learned advocate submits that all the documents regarding legal procurement of the gold biscuits were produced by the applicants. he submits that the lower authorities did not examine the documents in their perspective and held against the applicants. he submits that the applicants are poor people, their sources of income are very low and therefore, any direction of deposit of any amount will create financial hardship to the applicants. he submits that they are very small wage earners and prays that the pre-deposit of penalty may be dispensed with.5. opposing the request for dispensing with the pre-deposit of penalty, shri p.k. jain, learned sdr submits that in all cases of illegal procurement of gold biscuits, the source of income illegally disposed of by the persons cannot be relied upon. he submits that the value of gold biscuits is more rs. 17 lakh and some foreign currency about rs. 5 lakh was also confiscated. he submits.....

Full Judgment

1. Shri G.K. Rana, learned Advocate at the outset questioned the jurisdiction in passing the Stay Order in Stay Petitions No.C/S/983-984/96-NB. He submits that in this case the gold was confiscated absolutely and the value of the gold biscuits was more than Rs. 2 lakh and, therefore, it was not within the jurisdiction of Single Member Bench to pass the Stay Order. He submits that thus the Stay Order suffers from jurisdictional competence and prays that the Stay Order may be recalled.

2. Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.

3. Heard the learned Counsel and the learned SDR. We note that the value of the gold biscuits confiscated absolutely is more than Rs. 2 lakh, therefore, the case should have been heard by a Division Bench.

Since the case was put up before a Single Member Bench and at the time of hearing the case the competence of Single Member Bench was not questioned. Hence the order. However, this being the case of jurisdiction, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel and accordingly recall the Stay Order. With the consent of both the sides stay petitions were heard.

4. Arguing the stay petitions, Shri G.K. Rana, learned Advocate submits that all the documents regarding legal procurement of the gold biscuits were produced by the applicants. He submits that the lower authorities did not examine the documents in their perspective and held against the applicants. He submits that the applicants are poor people, their sources of income are very low and therefore, any direction of deposit of any amount will create financial hardship to the applicants. He submits that they are very small wage earners and prays that the pre-deposit of penalty may be dispensed with.

5. Opposing the request for dispensing with the pre-deposit of penalty, Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR submits that in all cases of illegal procurement of gold biscuits, the source of income illegally disposed of by the persons cannot be relied upon. He submits that the value of gold biscuits is more Rs. 17 lakh and some foreign currency about Rs. 5 lakh was also confiscated. He submits that to handle this much amount, the applicants should have some sources and, therefore, nominal amount of penalty imposed on the applicants will create no financial hardship to the applicants. He, therefore, prays that the applicants may be directed to deposit the entire amount of penalty.

6. Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the applicants are wage earners only.

There is no evidence placed before us that they have got sources of income. In these circumstances, we direct Shri Uma Shanker to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/-and Shri Ashok Kumar to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on or before 31-12-1997. Compliance thereof should be reported on 21st January, 1998. In addition to examining the compliance report and its being found proper, the appeals should also be listed for regular hearing on the same date along with Appeal No. C/233/96-NB.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Ashok Kumar vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition