Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
(Arising Out Of Order-In-Original ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 22 October, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No.II IN APPEAL No.C/988/12 (Arising out of order-in-original No.95/2012 dated 08/08/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva.) Applicant Represented by: Mr.N.D.George, Advocate Lorenzo Bestonso Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Respondent Represented by:
Mr.Ahi9baran, Addl. Comm. (AR) Date of hearing 22/10/2014 Date of decision 22/10/2014 CORAM Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Honble Member (Technical) Mr.Ramesh Nair, Honble Member (Judicial) ORDER No: ..
Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan
1. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Lorenzo Bestonso mentioned a matter regarding non-implementation of this Tribunals order No.A/538-542/13/CSTB/C-I dated 05/03/2013 wherein the appellants appeal was allowed with consequential relief by setting aside the order-in-original No.95/2012 dated 08/08/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva. When the non-implementation of the order was brought to the notice of this Tribunal vide Miscellaneous Application No.C/MA(Ors)/93943/14 in appeal No.C/988/12, this Tribunal passed another order No.M/1637/14/CSTB/C-I dated 09/09/2014 wherein the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva was directed to refund the amount of pre-deposit made by the appellant within a period of fifteen days along with interest in accordance with the law. The learned Counsel submits that this order of this Tribunal has also not been complied with. Therefore, he prays for initiating suitable action against the department.
2. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue is not able to tell us about the progress of the implementation of the impugned order. Instead a copy of letter dated 21/10/2014 addressed to the learned AR is produced wherein it is mentioned that they have not received the copy of the order dated 09/09/2014 or direction of CESTAT and requesting for another copy of the order.
3 The learned AR representing the Revenue was present in the Court when the order was dictated. It was, therefore, his duty to intimate the same to the concerned authorities of the decision of this Tribunal. In any case, the said order dated 09/09/2014 was given as Dasti. The learned AR also confirms that he had collected a copy of the order and had communicated the same to the respondent Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva and therefore, the present letter dated 21/10/2014 is only a lame excuse for not implementing the directions of this Tribunal contained in the orders mentioned above. In any case, the order dated 05/03/2013 directing the refund was already available with the department for implementation.
4 In view of the above position, the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva is directed to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him in accordance with the law for non-implementation of this Tribunals orders dated 05/03/2013 and 09/09/2014. This notice is returnable within a period of fourteen days from today. The learned AR is present in the Court and has noted the direction of this Tribunal and that constitutes sufficient notice to the department to show cause. Order be given dasti. A copy of the order may also be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva for his information and appropriate action.
(Dictated in Court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) pj 3