2013 (10) TMI 37 - AT - Customs

Bar of Unjust Enrichment Refund Claim Held that - The appellant submitted that in spite of these specific directions, the refund sanctioning authority had not complied with the directions - the appellants were heard on the matter much after the time-limit specified had expired - There was a complete disregard and defiance on the part of the refund sanctioning authority of the orders passed by the Tribunal - The concerned authority was directed to pass order on the refund claims filed by the appellant Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Non-compliance with directions for considering unjust enrichment in refund claims, delay in decision-making by refund sanctioning authority, contempt proceedings for non-compliance with court orders.

Analysis:
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI addresses the issue of non-compliance with directions regarding the consideration of unjust enrichment in refund claims filed by the appellants, M/s Sai Organic & Chemical and M/s VikasGlobalone Ltd. The Tribunal had previously directed the concerned authority to decide on the bar of unjust enrichment within 30 days. However, the refund sanctioning authority failed to adhere to these directions, leading to a delay in the decision-making process. The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted this delay and requested immediate action to resolve the matter.

Regarding the delay in decision-making, the Tribunal noted that despite specific directions, the refund sanctioning authority did not comply with the orders passed by the Tribunal. After reviewing the records and hearing arguments from both parties, the Tribunal observed a complete disregard and defiance by the refund sanctioning authority. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the concerned authority to promptly pass orders on the refund claims and report compliance by a specified date, emphasizing the need for immediate action to resolve the issue.

Moreover, the judgment warned the refund sanctioning authority of potential contempt proceedings if they failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. The presence of the learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) in court served as notice to the authority regarding the consequences of non-compliance. The Tribunal made it clear that failure to pass a decision on the refund claim and communicate it to the appellant would result in liability for contempt proceedings. The judgment concluded by ordering the issuance of the order dasti, emphasizing the urgency and importance of resolving the matter promptly to ensure compliance with court directives.