2007 (9) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Application under Rules 40 and 41 of the CESTAT Rules seeking for direction to be issued to the Asst. Commissioner to implement the order of the Tribunal - Whatever evidences available with them should have been submitted before the Original Authority within 30 days - applicant has not fulfilled the obligations cast on them in terms of the order of Tribunal - applicant has also not produced any evidence of efforts/action taken on their part to get the disposal of SCA pending before the HC - Asst. Commissioner not deliberately disobey the order of the Tribunal - merits in the application and the same is rejected

Summary

Issues: Application seeking direction to implement Tribunal's order; Compliance with Tribunal's directions; Dispute regarding withdrawal of SCA before High Court; Interpretation of Tribunal's order; Relevance of case laws.

The judgment involves an application under Rules 40 and 41 of the CESTAT Rules seeking direction for the implementation of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had directed the Original Authority to decide on a pending issue expeditiously after granting a personal hearing. However, the Original Authority insisted on the withdrawal of a Special Civil Application (SCA) filed before the High Court, citing judicial indiscipline if not withdrawn. The Appellant argued that this insistence violated the Tribunal's specific directions, referencing relevant case laws. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the dispute before the High Court was directly relevant to the issue to be decided by the Original Authority, and there was genuine fear of going against the High Court's final decision.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the Appellant had not complied with the Tribunal's order effectively. The Appellant failed to submit available evidence to the Original Authority within the specified timeframe and did not demonstrate efforts to resolve the SCA pending before the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the Asst. Commissioner's reluctance to implement the order was based on valid concerns to avoid judicial indiscipline. The Tribunal concluded that the case laws cited were not directly applicable to the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application, finding no merit in it.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of compliance with the Tribunal's directions, the dispute over the withdrawal of the SCA before the High Court, the interpretation of the Tribunal's order, and the relevance of cited case laws. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fulfilling obligations as per its orders and considered the genuine concerns raised by the Respondent regarding the High Court's pending decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that the Appellant had not met the requirements set forth in the Tribunal's order.