2014 (4) TMI 1060 - HC - Central Excise

Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 - Non execution of order passed in 2015 (2) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - Held that - if State or instrumentality of the State does not carry out lawful order of appropriate authority, it is not only arbitrary act but disobedience to order of lawful authority. While repelling the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that as the period of limitation has not expired to prefer appeal, the order cannot be acted upon, we hold prescribed period of limitation for preferring appeal has no correlation with enforceability of the order of Tribunal. - respondents to release the detained goods within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after drawing a sample of the oil, provided of course, the operation of the order of the learned Tribunal is not stayed by the competent Court of law, within the time mentioned above - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inaction of the respondents in releasing detained goods as per the Tribunal's order.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to execute its own order.
3. Validity of the order for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002.
4. Failure of the respondent-authority to release goods despite the Tribunal's decision.
5. Contemplation of appeal by the department against the Tribunal's order.
6. Operability of the Tribunal's order in the absence of an appeal or expiry of the appeal period.
7. Maintainability of the writ petition for implementation of the Tribunal's order.
8. Legal justification for detaining goods against a valid Tribunal order.
9. Relationship between the period of limitation for appeal and enforceability of the Tribunal's order.
10. Requirement for the respondents to seek a stay of the Tribunal's order for non-implementation.
11. Disposal of the writ petition directing the release of detained goods within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed due to the respondents' inaction in releasing goods detained by respondent No. 2 despite a Tribunal order. The petitioner sought implementation of the Tribunal's order, which was held exempt under Notification No. 21/2002. The Tribunal's decision favored the petitioner, stating eligibility for the exemption. However, the respondent-authority did not release the goods, leading to the petition.

The Tribunal's view on its jurisdiction to execute its order was raised, indicating a procedural challenge. The petitioner emphasized the need for immediate release post the Tribunal's decision. The department's contemplation of an appeal against the order further complicated the matter, questioning the operability of the Tribunal's decision pending appeal.

The High Court found the Tribunal's order operative upon issuance unless stayed by the appropriate authority. The Court highlighted the lack of provisions for order execution, justifying the writ petition's maintainability due to respondent inaction. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with lawful orders and rejected the correlation between appeal limitation and order enforceability.

The Court directed the respondents to release the goods within ten days, subject to the Tribunal's order not being stayed. The judgment focused on the necessity for the respondents to seek a stay for non-implementation, emphasizing the importance of following due process in legal proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating on the order's legality, validity, or propriety, keeping those questions open for future consideration.