2015 (3) TMI 1147 - AT - Customs

Non-compliance of Tribunal s order - Revenue officer did not comply with the order s of the Tribunal already given till date because of which assessee s goods are pending at the Port and is incurring huge detention and demurrage charges - Held that non -compliance of the order by the Revenue officer who is a party to the appellate proceedings is indicative prima-facie of disregard of law. The Tribunal does not have power or authority to enforce execution of its orders. Therefore, the appellant is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy for execution of the previous order of Tribunal. - Dismissed as infractuous

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for direction to implement Tribunal's order dated 24-11-2014.
2. Non-compliance of Tribunal's order by Revenue officer.
3. Tribunal's power to enforce execution of its orders.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application by the respondent in Revenue's appeal requesting the appellant/Revenue to implement the Tribunal's order dated 24-11-2014. The Tribunal had set aside the Order-in-Appeal passed by the appellate Commissioner and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ghaziabad. Specific directions were given to the adjudicating authority, Explosive Department, and the respondents regarding testing of goods, submission of reports, and passing of a de novo order within specified timelines. The respondents also sought permission to destuff containers and store goods in a warehouse to avoid incurring demurrage charges.

2. The assessee contended that the adjudicating authority had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 24-11-2014, resulting in the detention of goods at the port and incurring substantial detention and demurrage charges. The Tribunal noted the non-compliance by the Revenue officer as indicative of a prima facie disregard of the law. However, the Tribunal clarified that it does not possess the power or authority to enforce the execution of its orders. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, allowing the assessee/applicant to pursue an appropriate remedy for the execution of the order dated 24-11-2014.

3. Additionally, a separate application for early hearing of another miscellaneous application was deemed infractuous and dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with tribunal orders by the concerned parties and the limitations on the tribunal's authority to enforce the execution of its directives, highlighting the need for parties to seek alternative remedies for enforcement.