ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. By this Misc. application, applicant is seeking permission of the Tribunal to file the appeal in this Bench in terms of Public Notice No. 1/97 which permits persons having their Head office or residence in his jurisdiction of the Bench to file appeal in that region.
2. Appellant contend that they are based in Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu and hence for permitting to file the appeal they have filed this application.
3. Heard both sides.
4. In view of CEGAT’s Public Notice referred to above, the Misc. application to file appeal in this Bench is allowed.
5. By the stay application, applicant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 65,000/- imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a)(iii) of the Customs Act 62. By the same order the Commissioner has ordered for confiscation of 200 Kgs. of Synthetic Ruby First Cracle and 347 Kgs of Synthetic Ruby Cracle. The Commissioner has enhanced the value from 2.21 lakhs to Rs. 12.79 lakhs. The goods have been ordered for confiscation, however granting redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 3.20 lakhs.
6. Ld. Consultant submits that appellants are not willing to pay the enhanced value and redeem the goods. He submits that as the goods under confiscation and the value also covers the penalty amount, he seeks for waiver of pre-deposit.
7. Heard Ld. DR.
8. In view of appellants’ unwillingness to clear the goods presently pending the appeal and goods are with the department, therefore the application for waiver of penalty is justified and same is granted and its recovery is stayed till the pendency of this appeal. Appeal to come-up in its turn.
9. Ld. Consultant submits that in the same application, they have also prayed for early hearing of the appeal stating that if the appeal is not taken-up for early hearing, then appellants would be put to irrepairable loss. He submits that appellant is a small importer and he has got very strong case. He submits that appellant is not in a position to enhance the value declared which has been enhanced from Rs. 2.21 lakhs to Rs. 16.34 lakhs. He submits that the duty liability is only Rs. 2,14,216/-.
10. Ld. DR submits that appeals involving duty and penalty of less than Rs. 10 lakhs are not being taken-up out of turn.
11. Ld. Consultant submits that appellant is a small trader and his request should be accepted.
12. We observe that the Bench is presently having high rate of stay applications to be heard. There are more than 1000 stay applications pending. Every day even more than 25 short matters are listed and another 25 regular matters are listed. Early Hearing has also been granted in matters involving Crores which could not be completed. There are more than 8000 appeals pending as such. Matters where there is no recurring liability and amounts being less than Rs. 10 lakhs are not being granted early hearing in view of constraints faced by the Bench. As such regretfully, the present application is rejected. The appellant may move application after 6 months.
13. The question of pre-deposit of the penalty does not arise as the goods are still under Customs control as party is not willing to clear the goods. Hence the stay application is disposed of accordingly.