2010 (12) TMI 459 - HC - Customs

Duty drawback - It is settled legal position that in the absence of any order of a higher forum staying an order made by a quasi-judicial authority or judicial authority, as the case may be, such order is required to be complied with by the concerned authority - in the present case, as the appeal preferred by the revenue has been heard and decided and as such the respondent has no cause or reason for not complying with the order of the Tribunal - the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to a circular dated 30th March 2000 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi whereby the Commissioners have been directed that on Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system, the drawback claims should be cleared within 3 working days and in manual cases, within 5 days - the petition is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 for direction to implement Tribunal's order on duty drawback applications.

Detailed Analysis:
- The petitioner, a Company, filed six applications for brand rate of duty drawback before the Commissioner, which were rejected due to delay.
- The petitioner appealed to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which directed the Commissioner to consider the applications by condoning the delay.
- Despite the Tribunal's order, the respondent did not process the applications, citing a pending tax appeal by the revenue.
- The High Court emphasized that in the absence of a higher forum's stay order, the Tribunal's directions must be complied with.
- The Court dismissed the tax appeal, clarifying that the respondent had no reason to not comply with the Tribunal's order.
- Delay in deciding such applications burdens the public exchequer with interest payments under the Customs Act, 1962.
- The Court directed the respondent to decide the applications promptly, referring to a circular for timely clearance of drawback claims.
- The petition was allowed, instructing the respondent to implement the Tribunal's order within two weeks.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely compliance with tribunal orders, especially in matters affecting public finances. It clarifies the duty of authorities to adhere to judicial directions and the implications of undue delays on the public exchequer. The decision provides a clear directive to the respondent to promptly process the petitioner's applications in line with established timelines, emphasizing the need for efficient administration and adherence to legal obligations.