2016 (2) TMI 23 - HC - Central Excise

Refund - Commissioner (Appeals) is not deciding the appeals of the petitioners only on the ground that the Department s appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal is pending before the High Court. - Held that - High Court has refused to grant stay against the judgment of the Tribunal, the Commissioner cannot indirectly ensure such stay by refusing to process and decide the appeals of the petitioners. This is precisely what the Commissioner has done in the present case. Refusal to decide the appeals on the ground that the Department s appeals are pending before the High Court would tentamount to ensuring stay against implementation of the decision of the Tribunal, which the High Court refused to grant. - the petition allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Commissioner's refusal to decide appeals pending Department's appeal before High Court.

Analysis:
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to keep their appeals pending due to the Department's appeal against the Tribunal's judgment. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the petitioners, who then sought refunds. The Department filed appeals against the Tribunal's decision, but the High Court refused to grant a stay. Despite this, the Commissioner kept the petitioners' appeals in 'Call Book,' effectively delaying the decision. The High Court criticized this action, stating that the Commissioner's refusal to decide the appeals was an indirect attempt to ensure a stay against the Tribunal's decision, which the High Court had not granted. The High Court directed the Commissioner to withdraw the appeals from the 'Call Book' and dispose of them promptly.

The High Court emphasized that when the High Court declines to stay the implementation of a Tribunal's decision, the benefit of that decision should favor the party who succeeded, in this case, the petitioners. By keeping the appeals pending, the Commissioner was attempting to deny the petitioners the benefit of the Tribunal's judgment, which the High Court did not allow. The High Court found the Commissioner's actions to be inappropriate and directed the Commissioner to decide the petitioners' appeals promptly and preferably by a specified date. The High Court's decision in this matter highlights the importance of ensuring that successful parties receive the benefits of their favorable judgments without undue delay or interference.