2013 (4) TMI 616 - AT - Central Excise

Withholding of Allowed refund - Department is not returning the same - Held that - Under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of the process or to secure the ends of justice. As per the said Rule, this Tribunal can pass such order to secure the ends of justice - In this case, there is no stay application filed by the Revenue. Therefore, to secure justice we direct the concerned officer to return the amount which is entitled to the applicant in consequence to the impugned order within seven days of the receipt of the order - The miscellaneous application is disposed of in the above terms.

Summary

Issues:
Intervention of the Tribunal under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for refund of an amount allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) but not returned by the department pending appeal.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking the intervention of the Tribunal under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) reassessed a Bill of Entry and allowed a refund of Rs. 15,72,608/- in favor of the applicant. Despite the order, the department did not return the refund amount, prompting the applicant to request the Tribunal's intervention to direct the concerned officer to implement the order during the appeal process.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted its power under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which allows it to make necessary or expedient orders to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Since no stay application was filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the concerned officer to return the entitled amount to the applicant within seven days of receiving the order to ensure justice is served.

The Tribunal's decision to dispose of the miscellaneous application in the above terms highlights its authority to intervene in cases where justice needs to be secured, especially when a refund rightfully due to an applicant is being withheld by the department pending an appeal. The application of Rule 41 in this context showcases the Tribunal's commitment to preventing abuse of process and ensuring fairness in the administration of justice.