9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1150 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that - the mere fact that the order of the appellate authorities is not acceptable to the department-in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject-matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. It this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws Refund application was duly submitted by the appellant on 23.6.2014. A certificate regarding unjust enrichment from the Chartered Accountant was also submitted. The original/duplicate copies of Bills of Entries were stated to have been submitted with the appraiser vide letter dt. 15.9.2005. The Original TR-6 Challans evidencing payment of ₹ 2 Crores were also submitted along with the communication from the Department regarding attachment and subsequent encashment by them of the mutual fund units possessed by the appellant. All the documents having been submitted, the authorities are required to follow the CBEC instructions referred to above. We do not know if they have obtained CBEC instructions not to implement the Tribunal Order of 10.4.2013 granting consequential relief. More than two years have passed but relief has not been given to the appellant in defiance of CBEC Order and Supreme Court decision - Therefore in terms of Rule 40 & 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, we direct the Assistant Commissioner to comply with the Tribunal Order within 60 days of the receipt of this order, to secure the ends of justice. - Appeal disposed of.
Issues: Implementation of final order, refund claim, non-compliance with tribunal order, judicial discipline, refund processing delay.
Implementation of Final Order: The appellant filed a miscellaneous application for the implementation of the final order passed by the CESTAT Mumbai Bench, which rejected the enhancement in the value of imported goods, leading to the demand of duty, penalties, and confiscation being set aside. The appellant subsequently filed a refund claim of a substantial amount, including deposits with mutual funds and cash, which was not processed due to discrepancies in the refund application. Despite submitting required documents like a certificate on unjust enrichment, Bills of Entry, and TR-6 Challans, the refund was not granted. Non-Compliance with Tribunal Order: The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide a valid reason for not processing the refund claim, even after being directed to either produce a stay from a competent authority or process the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following appellate authorities' decisions, citing the Supreme Court's view in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., which stressed the need for judicial discipline and compliance with higher appellate authorities' orders. Judicial Discipline: Referring to the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal highlighted the requirement for authorities to give utmost regard to judicial discipline and implement orders of higher appellate authorities promptly. It noted that failing to follow such orders could lead to undue harassment to assesses and chaos in tax law administration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for authorities to adhere to CBEC instructions and implement tribunal orders granting consequential relief promptly. Refund Processing Delay: Despite the appellant submitting all necessary documents and following CBEC instructions, the Revenue delayed processing the refund claim for over two years, contrary to the CBEC order and the Supreme Court decision cited. In light of this delay and non-compliance, the Tribunal directed the Assistant Commissioner to comply with the Tribunal order within 60 days to ensure justice is served, as per the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. This judgment underscores the importance of timely implementation of tribunal orders, adherence to judicial discipline, and the need for authorities to promptly process refund claims in accordance with relevant instructions and legal precedents.
|
