2009 (8) TMI 977 - AT - Central Excise

Implementation of Tribunal s Order - provide registration to the assessee with a period of one month from the date of passing the order on 19-6-2009 - Held that - The order allowing the appeal was passed on 2-5-2008 and it is more than one year, which has passed without implementation of the Tribunal s order. Admittedly, there is no stay of operation of the said order by the Hon ble High Court. In this scenario, Revenue was duty bound to carry out the implementation within a period of one month from today, as directed in the order dated 19-6-2009 - the period extended by another one month for compliance - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's application for extension of time to implement Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an application seeking an extension of time for implementing the Tribunal's order dated 2-5-2008, which directed the Revenue to provide registration to the assessee within one month from the date of the order. The Revenue contended that they had challenged the original order before the Hon'ble High Court along with a stay application, hence requested an extension until the matter was decided by the High Court.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention. It noted that more than a year had passed since the order allowing the appeal was issued, and there was no stay of operation by the High Court. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue was duty-bound to implement the order within the specified period. Despite the initial one-month deadline expiring, the Revenue filed for an extension after the deadline had passed. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the Revenue's inaction and extended the period for compliance by another month in the interest of justice, setting a new deadline for compliance.

The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of timely implementation of its orders by the Revenue. It emphasized that in the absence of a stay order from the High Court, the Revenue was obligated to carry out the implementation within the specified timeframe. The Tribunal's extension of the compliance period aimed to ensure that justice was served and the Tribunal's orders were effectively enforced. The judgment underscored the significance of prompt and diligent execution of legal directives to uphold the rule of law and maintain judicial integrity.