Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Prashant Glass Works (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 12 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2001(76)ECC585, 2004(164)ELT158(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
K.K. Usha, J. (President)
1. This is an application filed by the appellant in Appeal No. C/345/2000-A, which was allowed by this Tribunal by Final order dated 3-9-2001. By order dated 21-9-2000 the Tribunal granted stay of recovery of the amount demanded against the appellant on condition that an amount of Rs. 50,000 was deposited. The appellant complied with the above order depositing Rs. 50,000 on 16-10-2000. Thereafter during the hearing of the appeal the Tribunal passed a further interim order on 11-5-2001 under which as an interim direction was given to release the goods on payment of duty as declared by the appellant on the basis of provisional assessment. For the remaining amount the appellant was to give a Bond to the customs authorities. Provisional clearance should be allowed to the appellant without insisting on payment regarding redemption fine and penalty.
2. Even though the appellant approached the customs authorities with copy of the order dated 11-5-2001 for getting the goods assessed to duty for clearance, no action was taken by the customs authorities. Letters were addressed repeating the request but without any result.
3. By Final Order dated 3-9-2001 the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. It was held that the Revenue has not succeeded in proving that the price declared by the appellant was not the correct transaction value. The appellants thereafter addressed letters dated 11-10-2001, 9-11-2001, 8-12-2001, 22-1-2002, 15-2-2002, 23-5-2002 and 30-8-2002 to the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Calcutta requesting for refund of the amount of Rs. 50,000 and for getting the Bill of Entry dated 24-11-1999 assessed to duty as per order of the Tribunal. Since there was no response from the Commissioner the appellant addressed letters dated 19-6-2002 and 30-8-2002 to the Chairman, C.B.E. & C., New Delhi. Since none of these letters evoked any action on the part of the Commissioner to implement the Final Order of this Tribunal, the present miscellaneous application was filed by the appellant.
4. When the application came up for hearing on 22-4-2003, we directed the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta to file an affidavit replying the allegations made in the miscellaneous application and also to give details of the officers who were in charge during the relevant period when the delay occurred in implementing the final order passed by the Tribunal. The case was then adjourned to 10-6-2003.
5. On 14-5-2003 the Commissioner filed an affidavit. In the above affidavit he has mentioned that the refund order dated 26-3-2003 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Apprg. Refund Section regarding refund of the amount of Rs. 50,000 and the Bill of Entry was finally assessed on 1-5-2003 for payment of duty and thereafter effecting release of the goods. Since the affidavit was not satisfactory, on 10-6-2003 we directed the Commissioner to file a fresh affidavit on or before 5-8-2003. The case was then adjourned to 26-8-2003. The affidavit was filed by the Commissioner on 22-9-2003. From the averments in the affidavit it is seen that the stand taken by the Respondent is not that they were not aware of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 11-5-2001 and the final order dated 3-9-2001. The party had intimated the Commissioner about these orders in time. Inaction is sought to be justified on the ground that the Department did not get a certified copy of the interim order or the final order from the registry of the CEGAT (now CESTAT) at any point of time. It is quite unfortunate for a responsible officer like Commissioner to take such a stand. It is known to the Commissioner that the Revenue is represented by Departmental Representative in this case. This is clear from the statement in paragraph 6 of his affidavit dated 14-5-2003. In this paragraph he refers to a fax message received from D.R. CEGAT as to the observations made by the Tribunal in not producing contemporaneous Bills of Entry. Therefore, when copies of the interim order and final order were produced by the party, the Commissioner was duty-bound to get in touch with the office of the CDR to verify the authenticity of the orders if the Commissioner entertained any doubt in that respect. The stand taken by the Commissioner in the affidavit is not at all satisfactory.
6. Learned DR appearing on behalf of the Commissioner submitted that the amount of Rs. 50,000 was refunded to the applicant under Cheque dated 26-3-2003. Even though the Bill of Entry was assessed finally on 1-5-2003 the applicant has not paid the duty nor cleared the goods.
7. Learned Counsel who is appearing on behalf of the applicant prayed for permission to withdraw from the case on the ground that he was not getting any instructions from the applicant. We thereupon issued notice to the applicant. The applicant has not responded to the notice. One can very well understand that after so much delay it may be that the applicant is not in a position to pay the dues on demurrage etc. for getting the goods cleared or that the goods might have got decayed by this time. It is not for us to examine this issue in these proceedings.
8. We heard Shri M. Chandrasekharan who is assisting the Court in these proceedings as Amicus Curiae. After going through the affidavits filed by the Commissioner, Shri Chandrasekharan submitted that since the present Commissioner took charge only on 11-11-2002 he may not be held responsible for the entire period of delay.
9. As mentioned earlier, we are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Commissioner in not implementing the orders in time. But, at the same time, since the present Commissioner took charge only on 11-11-2002 it may not be justified to hold him responsible for the whole delay. We also find that in the affidavit dated 22-9-2003 he has expressed his unqualified apology for causing delay in implementing the order. He submits that the delay was not caused wilfully or deliberately. In the light of the facts stated above, we accept the unqualified apology offered by the Commissioner and drop further proceedings against him. It is necessary that the Central Board of Excise and Customs enquire into the issue as to who were all responsible for causing delay in implementing the order.
10. A copy of this order to be sent to Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi.