2016 (9) TMI 121 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - eligibility for concessional rate of additional duty of 5% - notification no. 21/2002-CE dated 1st March 2002 ignorance of order of the Tribunal no. 1112/2008 dated 1st September 2008 by appellate authority - certificate by chartered accountant furnished that burden of duty not passed principle of unjust enrichment Held that - It is surprising that a senior officer discharging functions as Commissioner (Appeals) appears to be bereft of knowledge of judicial hierarchies and comprehension of judicial discipline. The disposal of these matters by the appellate authority ignoring the decision of Tribunal reflects poorly on the first tier of the appellate mechanism in the scheme of tax administration leaving needless burden on the assesse appeal disposed off decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for concessional rate of additional duty of 5% extended by notification no. 21/2002-CE.
2. Consideration of Tribunal's order no. 1112/2008 by the first appellate authority.
3. Compliance with judicial hierarchies and judicial discipline by the appellate authority.

Issue 1: Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Additional Duty:
The appeals were filed against the order-in-appeal dated 27th August 2010 and 29th January 2013, which held the appellant ineligible for the concessional rate of additional duty of 5% under notification no. 21/2002-CE. The impugned order highlighted that the appellant was deemed ineligible due to the pending appeal filed by the department before the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's final order no. 1112/2008. Despite this, the Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of a stay on the Tribunal's decision, the appellant was entitled to the concessional rate of duty. The appellant's submission of a certificate from a Chartered Accountant to prove non-passing of duty burden further supported the refund claim, eliminating the ground of unjust enrichment.

Issue 2: Consideration of Tribunal's Order by First Appellate Authority:
The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority disregarded the Tribunal's order no. 1112/2008 dated 1st September 2008, which had not been stayed or set aside, and proceeded to render findings contrary to the Tribunal's decision. The appellate authority's justification for this action, citing the pending appeal before the Supreme Court, was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision of the Tribunal should have been adhered to, especially in the absence of a stay on its operation, criticizing the appellate authority's casual disregard for the Tribunal's decision.

Issue 3: Compliance with Judicial Hierarchies and Discipline:
The Tribunal expressed disappointment in the lack of understanding of judicial hierarchies and judicial discipline displayed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal criticized the appellate authority's failure to appreciate the settled legal position that decisions of the Tribunal must be followed when not stayed or set aside. This lack of adherence to judicial discipline was deemed an act of judicial indiscipline leading to unnecessary and prolonged litigation, burdening both the judicial system and the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of upholding judicial hierarchies and discipline to ensure the smooth functioning of the appellate mechanism in tax administration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the appellant's eligibility for the concessional rate of additional duty and criticizing the first appellate authority's failure to adhere to judicial discipline and hierarchy. The Tribunal highlighted the need for judicial discipline to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure the efficient functioning of the appellate system in tax administration.