Commissioner of Customs Vs. L. Rajkumar - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu |
| Sep-14-2005 |
| P Chacko, J T T.K. |
| Commissioner of Customs |
| L. Rajkumar |
1. this application filed by the revenue (appellant) seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals), whereby the lower appellate authority set aside the order of the original authority confiscating foreign currency. this application states that the impugned order cannot be allowed to have the force of law as it will set a bad precedent to those who deal in foreign currency in 'grey market'. it is also stated that the impugned order has recurring effect.2. after hearing id. sdr, we are at a loss to accept the above submissions of the revenue. the offence charged against the respondent can only be seen as an isolated event and the same cannot be seen as having recurring effect. consequently, the impugned order also cannot have "recurring effect" in the sense understood by the appellant. there is also no reason to apprehend "bad precedent" inasmuch as we will certainly sit in judgment over the order passed by id. commissioner (appeals). in the result, the above application of the revenue is rejected.
1. This application filed by the Revenue (Appellant) seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the lower appellate authority set aside the order of the original authority confiscating foreign currency. This application states that the impugned order cannot be allowed to have the force of law as it will set a bad precedent to those who deal in foreign currency in 'grey market'. It is also stated that the impugned order has recurring effect.
2. After hearing Id. SDR, we are at a loss to accept the above submissions of the Revenue. The offence charged against the respondent can only be seen as an isolated event and the same cannot be seen as having recurring effect. Consequently, the impugned order also cannot have "recurring effect" in the sense understood by the appellant. There is also no reason to apprehend "bad precedent" inasmuch as we will certainly sit in judgment over the order passed by Id. Commissioner (Appeals). In the result, the above application of the Revenue is rejected.