2010 (1) TMI 799 - AT - Central Excise

Refund pursuant to order of tribunal (2008 - TMI - 34016 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) - refund sanctioning authority was directed to sanction the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. - authority failed to sanction refund - No submissions have been made by the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner concerned seeking extension of time for implementing the order of the Tribunal or explaining the reasons for non-implementation - Held that - DR is not in a position to explain the reasons for non-sanction of the refund and no written submissions have been filed by the concerned Commissioner, Commissioner concerned directed to appear in person and explain the reasons for not sanctioning the refund.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to sanction refund despite multiple tribunal orders.
2. Lack of explanation for non-implementation of tribunal orders.
3. Disobedience and lack of judicial discipline by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the failure to sanction a refund despite multiple tribunal orders in favor of the appellants. Initially, the appellants became eligible for a refund following an order by the Tribunal. However, the refund claim was not sanctioned, leading the appellants to approach the Tribunal again. Subsequent tribunal orders directed the refund sanctioning authority to process the refund within a specified timeframe, but the refund remained unsanctioned. The issue stemmed from the transfer of the Assistant Commissioner responsible for sanctioning the refund without a replacement, causing delays and non-implementation of the tribunal orders.

2. The lack of explanation for the non-implementation of tribunal orders was highlighted during the proceedings. The learned DR, representing the Revenue, failed to provide a satisfactory reason for the delay in sanctioning the refund. Despite the transfer of the Assistant Commissioner, no clear timeline or plan for refund processing was presented. The Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner did not seek an extension of time or provide written submissions justifying the non-implementation of the tribunal orders, indicating a lack of proactive measures to address the issue.

3. The judgment also addressed the attitude of the Commissioner, emphasizing a sense of disobedience and lack of judicial discipline. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's behavior concerning, especially given the repeated tribunal orders and the failure to comply with them. In response to the lack of satisfactory explanations and submissions, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to appear in person to explain the reasons for not sanctioning the refund. This directive aimed to hold the Commissioner accountable for the delays and non-compliance with the tribunal orders, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to legal directives.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of non-sanctioning of refunds, lack of explanation for non-implementation of tribunal orders, and the need for judicial discipline in ensuring timely and compliant actions by the concerned authorities.