2014 (11) TMI 661 - AT - Customs

Delay in refund claim - Refund of pre deposit directed by this Tribunal - Order not complied with - Held that - Revenue was present in the Court when the order was dictated. It was, therefore, his duty to intimate the same to the concerned authorities of the decision of this Tribunal. In any case, the said order dated 09/09/2014 was given as Dasti . The learned AR also confirms that he had collected a copy of the order and had communicated the same to the respondent Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva and therefore, the present letter dated 21/10/2014 is only a lame excuse for not implementing the directions of this Tribunal contained in the orders mentioned above. In any case, the order dated 05/03/2013 directing the refund was already available with the department for implementation. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva is directed to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him in accordance with the law for non-implementation of this Tribunal s orders - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Non-implementation of Tribunal's orders, Contempt proceedings

Non-implementation of Tribunal's orders:
The appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief by setting aside the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. Despite the Tribunal's order directing the refund of the pre-deposit amount along with interest, the order was not implemented. The appellant's counsel raised concerns about the non-compliance of the Tribunal's orders. The Additional Commissioner representing the Revenue failed to provide updates on the progress of implementation. A letter from the Revenue mentioned the non-receipt of the order dated 09/09/2014, requesting another copy. However, it was revealed that the order was given "Dasti," and the Revenue was aware of it. The Commissioner of Customs was directed to show cause for not implementing the Tribunal's orders dated 05/03/2013 and 09/09/2014. Contempt proceedings were considered for the non-compliance, with a notice returnable within fourteen days. The direction was noted by the Revenue's representative, constituting sufficient notice.

Contempt proceedings:
In light of the non-implementation of the Tribunal's orders, the Commissioner of Customs was directed to show cause for potential contempt proceedings. The failure to comply with the Tribunal's directives led to the decision to initiate suitable action against the department. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following its orders and ensuring timely compliance with the directives issued. The notice for contempt proceedings was to be returned within a specified timeframe, with the Revenue's representative being present in court to acknowledge the direction. A copy of the order was to be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Customs for information and necessary action. The Tribunal underscored the seriousness of non-compliance with its orders and the potential consequences of failing to adhere to the directives issued.

This judgment highlights the significance of promptly implementing Tribunal orders, the consequences of non-compliance, and the initiation of contempt proceedings when necessary to ensure adherence to legal directives and decisions.