9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the above the petitioner is entitled to utilise the SFIS scrip to pay the dut of customs. When the Tribunal has dismissed the stay application of the revenue, the petitioner is entitled to get benefits of the appellate order, more particularly when the petitioner's case is already covered by the decision of this Court in Ranadip Shipping & Transport Co.Pvt.Ltd. (1989 (3) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY). Observations made by the Apex Court in Union of India v/s. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] in similar circumstances are squarely applicable to the present case also as, "....The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms duty in case of goods covered by the above Notification. 3. The Asst.Commissioner of Customs had by order dated 30 March 2009 rejected/disallowed the petitioner's claim for the benefit of Customs Notification No.94/2004 dated 10 September 2004 holding that the `Reach Stackers' are infact vehicles and that since the Customs notification excludes benefits to the vehicles, the petitioner cannot get the benefits of the notification and consequently benefits of the SFIS. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), MumbaiII at Nhava Sheva. Pending the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.90,07,072/under protest on 18 April 2009. By order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay before the Tribunal. But by order dated 28 February 2001 (Exh.G) the Tribunal dismissed the said application after observing that the revenue has not made out a prima facie case for stay. Even though the Tribunal had rejected the stay application three years back, the Asst.Commissioner has not processed the petitioner's application for refund on the ground of pendency of the appeal. Even the Tribunal has not granted the prayer made by the petitioner for early hearing of the appeal in view of large pendency. 7. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has moved this Court for writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva) to accept the petitioner's refund application and to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
