2002 (7) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Contempt of Tribunal by Collector (Appeals) - Judicial discipline - Refund - Ad hoc exemption

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for exemption under ad hoc exemption Order No. 404, dated 29-9-75 for imported Ammonium Chloride.
- Rejection of refund application based on timing of import and exemption order.
- Comparison with previous Tribunal order No. 94/84 and its relevance.
- Disagreement by Commissioner with Tribunal's decision.
- Application of the doctrine of res judicata.
- Breach of judicial discipline by Collector (Appeals) and potential contempt of Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The central issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of Ammonium Chloride imported by the Food Corporation of India for exemption under ad hoc exemption Order No. 404, dated 29-9-75. The appellants argued that the impugned order rejected their refund application on the grounds that the goods were imported before the issuance of the exemption order, therefore not covered by it.

2. The appellants contended that the rejection of their application was illegal, citing a previous Tribunal order, No. 94/84, which dealt with a similar scenario. They argued that the facts of the present case mirrored those of the previous order, where the Tribunal had allowed a refund application despite the timing of the import and exemption order. The appellants emphasized that the impugned order disregarded the Tribunal's decision and should not be upheld.

3. The Tribunal found that the previous order, No. 94/84, was indeed applicable to the current case as it involved goods imported by the Food Corporation of India under the same ad hoc exemption Order No. 404, dated 29-9-75. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner was obligated to follow the previous order and grant the refund to the appellants, as the facts and legal questions were identical.

4. In a separate judgment, another Member of the Tribunal reiterated that the issue was conclusively settled in favor of the assessee by the previous Tribunal order No. 94/84. The Member highlighted that the Revenue's claim was barred by res judicata, emphasizing the finality and binding effect of the previous ruling on the same issue between the same parties.

5. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for disagreeing with the Tribunal's decision, stating that such actions were not permissible. The Tribunal emphasized that if Revenue authorities disagreed with appellate orders, the correct course of action would be to file an appeal rather than disobeying the orders. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants.

6. Lastly, the Tribunal expressed concern over the breach of judicial discipline by the Collector (Appeals) for not following the Tribunal's ruling. The Tribunal highlighted that the Collector's actions amounted to contempt of the Tribunal and invoked Rule 40 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, and the inherent powers of the Tribunal to ensure appropriate action by the Government to uphold judicial discipline among departmental authorities. A certified copy of the order was to be forwarded to the Ministry of Finance for necessary action.