2009 (6) TMI 368 - AT - Customs

Implementation of order of tribunal - Appellant has come to this forum for proper direction to the Authority below to implement of the order of tribunal wherein relief has been granted to assessee-appellant - Although the order has been passed in the year 2008 and 5 (five) months have been elapsed. Orders of the Tribunal have not been implemented by the authorities below on some pretext or other. Bank guarantee given by assessee kept alive for five months after passing of order Revenue claiing that they have filed appeal against the order before High Court and directions being given there to keep alive bank guarantee, but copy of same not served on assessee - Submission of the learned Counsel that their interest is prejudiced with the survival of bank guarantee till today is a matter of serious concern when Tribunal has already decided the matter in favour of the litigant. Copy of appeal memo before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi not being served on the present appellant, the appellant is also in dark departmental representative directed to file his affidavit on particulars of department s appeal to HC along with directions for stay and bank guarantee therein

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, consisting of Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) and Rakesh Kumar, Member (T), heard an appeal from an appellant represented by Shri Krishna Kant, Advocate, against the respondent represented by Shri Sansar Chand, DR. The appellant sought proper direction for the implementation of a final order from 2008, which had not been executed by the authorities despite five months having passed. The appellant relied on a judgment from the Apex Court to support their case. The revenue claimed to have challenged the Tribunal's order in the High Court of Delhi, but as of the hearing, there was no stay order. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision should stand, and any delay tactics by the revenue were against the law. The appellant's interest in a bank guarantee of Rs. 47,00,000 was at stake. Both parties were directed to provide further information, and the revenue was required to file an affidavit from the Jurisdictional Commissioner by a specified date. The case was adjourned until the affidavit was submitted.