9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. It is the submission of the applicant that in pursuance of the Tribunal s Order dated 23-11-2001, the department has to release 800 tolas of gold to the appellants by implementing the said order. Through the miscellaneous application, the appellants are seeking directions from the Tribunal for release of gold along with interest on prevailing market price of gold. 3. I find that Rule 41 of the CEGAT (now CESTAT) (Procedure) Rules, 1982 reads as under :- The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. Rule 41 is a part of the procedural rules framed by the Tribunal itself in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Customs Act, 1962, there are no specific powers provided to punish for contempt or to enforce its orders. Sub-section (7) of Section 129C no doubt gives certain powers to the Tribunal, as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely, - (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents; and (d) issuing commissions. It is clear from the above that such powers as have been given under the Customs Act, 1962 are adequate for deciding an appeal and passing the final order. But it is also obvio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf merely to regulate its own procedures in matters arising out of exercise of the powers assigned to it. In matters of punishing for contempt and enforcement of its orders, since the CESTAT has not been given any specific powers under the law, it cannot obviously derive such powers from its own rules. 6. CESTAT is a Court and contempt of CESTAT can certainly be punished and its orders need to be enforced. In the case of ITAT v. Dr. V.K. Agarwal, Law Secretary, Government of India - 1998 SOL (Supreme Court Online) Case No. 141, the Apex Court in its order No. dated 17-11-1998 has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) performs judicial function and is a Court subordinate to the High Court. The Apex Court has also held in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
