Judgment:
1. The brief facts in this case are, that the appellant was searched on 26.4.93 by the Police at Gagaria in Roadways Bus No. RJ 14/P-920. On search by the police, Indian currency of Rs. 3,51,1000/- was found on (SIC) person. The appellant, Shri Asu Ram told the police that he had obtained the said currency by selling some silver to one Shri Amra Ram Sonar of Barmer. The currency was therefore, seized and the appellant was handed over to the customs authorities alongwith the currency on 27.4.93. His submission was recorded under Section 108 of the customs Act, 1962 on 2.5.93 in which he reitrated his submissions earlier given before the Police. He also stated that he had been indulging in smuggling for the previous 6-7 months and was bringing silver on commission basis and delivering it to one Mahendra S/o Amba Lal Mali at Barmer. Consequently the proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in Additional Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur passing an order dated 26.6.97 in which he dropped the proceedings and Ordered for release of the seized Indian currency to the appellant. The Revenue filed an appeal against the above order of the Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his order dated 26.5.2000 allowed the appeal of the Revenue by remitting the case to the original authority for de-novo consideration and for passing a fresh order.
3. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). The matter is listed today to dispose of the stay petition filed by the appellant Shri Asu Ram. The appellant is not represented despite the notice dated 29.12.2000/11.1.2001 sent to him by the Registry of CEGAT. A copy of this notice is also endorsed to Shri Kamlendra Choudhary Advocate, of the appellant. I have heard Shri K.Panchat Charam, JDR for the respondents. The appellant in his stay petition has requested that the de-novo proceedings ordered by Commissioner (Appeals) may be stayed till his appeal before CEGAT is disposed off. I have considered this submission. The appellant in his written memorandum of appeal has not been able to bring out any major ground against the Order of the lower appellate authority remanding the matter for de-novo consideration which would call for staying the further proceedings. It therefore, appears that the appellant is not prejudiced by the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In any event the concerned original authority on de-novo adjudication would afford reasonable opportunity to the appellant to state his case before him. In view of this fact, therefore, there is no force in the stay petition of the appellant and the same is accordingly dismissed.
4. The appeal should come for disposal in its own turn. Announced and dictated in the court.