2005 (9) TMI 333 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
Provisional release of confiscated goods, binding nature of Tribunal's orders on Revenue Officers and Assessee, Commissioner's authority to sit over Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:
1. Provisional Release of Confiscated Goods:
The appellant sought provisional release of confiscated goods through a Miscellaneous Application. The Advocate representing the appellant requested the Tribunal to allow provisional release based on certain conditions. The case had been remanded by the Tribunal with specific directions to be followed by the Commissioner during fresh adjudication. The Commissioner's Final Order was scrutinized, noting discrepancies where the Commissioner failed to acknowledge the Tribunal's directions. The appellant argued that Tribunal judgments are binding on all Revenue Officers and the assessee unless overturned by superior Courts. Citing a judgment from the Bombay High Court, the appellant contended that the Commissioner's only recourse was to adhere to the Tribunal's directions or appeal to Higher Courts, without the authority to disregard the Tribunal's order.

2. Binding Nature of Tribunal's Orders:
The Judicial Member heard the arguments presented by the learned JDR for the Revenue, who emphasized that once a Final Order confiscating goods had been issued, there was no provision for their provisional release. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not made an application for provisional release to the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner's criticism of the Tribunal's Order showcased a lack of understanding of legal provisions. It was reiterated that Tribunal orders are binding on both Revenue Officers and the assessee unless overturned by superior Courts. The Tribunal clarified that if the Commissioner disagreed with the Tribunal's Remand Order, the appropriate course was to appeal to Higher Courts, rather than unilaterally disregarding the Tribunal's decision.

3. Commissioner's Authority to Sit Over Tribunal's Decision:
After hearing both parties, the Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner did not possess the authority to overlook or modify the Tribunal's decision. It was reiterated that Tribunal orders hold binding authority unless overturned by superior Courts. The Tribunal directed that a copy of the Order be forwarded to the Chairman, C.B.E.C., New Delhi for further necessary action. The case was scheduled for the next hearing on a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of provisional release of confiscated goods, the binding nature of Tribunal orders on Revenue Officers and the assessee, and the Commissioner's limitations in altering Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal underscored the importance of adhering to Tribunal directives and the appropriate course of action for authorities in case of disagreement with Tribunal orders.