9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Implementation of Tribunal's Order, Refund Application Rejection, Non-Compliance of Higher Court Order, Contempt of Court
Implementation of Tribunal's Order: The appellants sought the implementation of the Tribunal's Order No. C/136/91-B2, dated 29th May, 1991. The learned advocate for the appellants pleaded for consequential effect to be given to the order as almost three years had passed since its issuance. The respondent stated that the process of refund was ongoing, and final decision from the Collector was awaited. The Tribunal noted the repeated applications filed by the appellants and the various adjournments in the case. A previous order directed the respondent to implement the Tribunal's order, citing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in a similar case. Despite multiple appearances before the Tribunal, no refund had been granted to the appellants, leading to a call for compliance with the Tribunal's order. Refund Application Rejection: The appellants had initially filed a refund application before the Assistant Collector, which was rejected. Subsequent appeals were made to higher authorities, including the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to decide the case de novo within a specified timeframe, considering previous orders and observations. The non-compliance of the Revenue authorities with the Tribunal's orders was highlighted, indicating a lack of seriousness in addressing the refund application and potential contempt of court. Non-Compliance of Higher Court Order: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with orders issued by higher courts, citing a Supreme Court case precedent. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the casual approach of the Revenue authorities towards implementing the Tribunal's order. Despite queries regarding any stay granted by the Supreme Court or admission of the appeal, it was confirmed that no such stay or admission had occurred. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Revenue authorities to implement the Tribunal's order within three weeks, with a copy of the order to be sent to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs. Contempt of Court: The Tribunal highlighted that non-compliance with orders from a higher court could amount to contempt of court. The Tribunal criticized the casual manner in which the Revenue authorities were handling the case, despite the appellants' efforts to seek redress through the legal process. The order mandated the Revenue authorities to give consequential effect to the Tribunal's order promptly, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to legal directives. This detailed analysis of the judgment underscores the procedural history, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's directives regarding the implementation of the Tribunal's order and the handling of the refund application by the Revenue authorities.
|
