9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty in respect of few vessels and set aside the customs duty demanded on seven vessels, as also the confiscation of some vessels were upheld and some vessels were set aside and the penalties were either set aside or reduced. Revenue as well as the importer filed appeals before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. By an interim order dated 26.09.2013 on an appeal filed by J.M. Baxi & Con, the Hon'ble High Court admitted the appeal and also framed the question of law and granted interim stay against the operation of the order of the Tribunal in so far as the liability of confiscation of vessel Smith Borneo. We were informed by both sides that on the appeals filed by revenue, no stay has been granted. 2. Applicant preferred refund application o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same prayer was made before the Tribunal that revenue is trying to get the matter listed for hearing of the stay petition. 5. From the records it is noticed that the Revenue had filed an appeal with the High Court in the month of January 2014 and inter alia prayed for staying the operation of the Tribunal t s order. These appeals were taken up for admission by the Hon'ble High Court on but no stay was granted to the Revenue When no order on its prayer for stay was passed by the Hon'ble High Court, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to implement the order of the Tribunal by granting refund or in the alternative it could have moved a Notice of Motion before the Hon'ble High Court seeking stay, The Revenue chose not to take any of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the relief unless stay order has been obtained." It is also mentioned that it is the responsibility of the concerned Commissioner to obtain stay orders expeditiously. The same view has been expressed by the Board in circular no. 802/35/2004-CX dated 08.12.2004 and 670/61/2002-CX dated 01.10.2002 wherein the Board has been consistently stating that the refund arises out of the orders of the higher fora should be sanctioned immediately. 7. We find that the Board Circular dated 08.12.2004 referred to above was issued in the context of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an order dated 21.09.2004, which has been referred to in para 3 of the said Circulars. The Board, in the said circular, had also taken note of several orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest and the interest payable shall be paid forthwith. 8. This Issues with the approval of Chairman/Member (L&J), CBEC." 8. Two earlier Board Circulars dated 2-6-1998 and 1-10-2012 are also relevant to the issue, therein also directions have been given to immediately grant refunds to avoid interest liability for- being incurred and the onus and responsibility of ensuring that refunds are sanctioned expeditiously unless stay has been obtained from the higher court has been placed upon the Commissioner. Para 2 of the Board Circular dated 02-06-1998 reads as under: "2. In this regard, the Board i s directions are as follows: (a) responsibility should be fixed for not disposing of the refund/rebate claims within 3 months from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f refunds. 10. All the Board Circulars have made repeated references to this unnecessary burden on the exchequer towards interest which is the direct result of inaction on the part of the Revenue authorities in implementing the orders of the Tribunal or other appellate forums. It is thus clear that far from gaining anything by delaying the grant of refund, the exchequer is actually suffering as a result of these delays. The officers of the department who purport to serve the department by withholding refunds in this manner are actually acting contrary to the Revenue's interests. This is the Central theme of all the Board Circulars referred to above. 11. Coming back to the facts on this case, whatever action the Revenue has taken now by fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the refund claims of the applicants despite there being no stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. This action of the lower authorities in not sanctioning the refund claims is judicial indiscipline. 13.1. We would also gainfully refer to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Tahree Heights Coop. Housing Society Ltd. vs. UOI 2016 (339) ELT 56 (Bom) wherein it is observed by the Lordships that "merely because matter being pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court does not mean the binding effect of this Court's order is lost or wiped out." 14. Ld. Departmental Representative submits that they be given another chance to move the Hon'ble High Court for expeditious hearing of the stay petition as soon as the Hon'ble High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
