MUMBAI, DEC 26, 2012: THIS was in the waiting. Or should we say, he asked for it and got it.

Only a few days back, we carried two decisions of the CESTAT, WZB, reported as 2012-TIOL-1868-CESTAT-MUM and 2012-TIOL-1871-CESTAT-MUM wherein the Central Excise authorities were not paying the r ebates and refunds due to the assessees but were appropriating the same against demands against which appeals were pending in Tribunal or even in cases where Tribunal had granted stay against the demands. In both these cases the Bench allowed the appeals with consequential relief and in one case the Bench directed the Registry to forward copy of the order to Chairman, CBEC for appropriate action – the adjudicating authority in the firing line was the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Commissionerate . (Is he the same one here too?).

We had in DDT 2006 also mentioned this –

“Why is it that the field has no respect for the directions of the Board, Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court?

Is collection of a small amount of revenue (that is not really yours by law) that important - just to meet your stupid targets? The Finance Minister should realise that his officers are doing a great damage to Revenue, Industry and above all the faith of the citizen in Government being fair and law abiding and not just a collector like Robin Hood!

The CBEC Chairman should instruct her officers to collect revenue by means fair and legal and not by unleashing a reign of terror on those assessees who work hard to ensure that you are paid fat salaries and even given a whip to thrash them. Don't kill that goose and it is possible that Atlas may shrug.”

In the present case, a Service Tax demand of Rs.17,14,394/- was confirmed against the applicant by the lower authorities and against the order of the Commissioner(A), the applicant had filed an application for Stay/appeal before the CESTAT.

While this application was pending before the CESTAT, the department had issued a notice u/s 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the service-recipient to deduct an amount of Rs.1 lakhs per month from the amount payable by the service-recipient to the applicant.

The applicant had moved the CESTAT against this notice and vide order dated 03.07.2012, the bench had directed that the notice be withdrawn.

However, nothing of this sort happened and, therefore, the applicant filed another Miscellaneous application praying for suitable direction to be issued to the department to withdraw the notice issued u/s 87 and further direct the department to return the excess amount recovered over and above Rs.17,14,394/- Service Tax payable by them.

When the matter was heard by the bench on 11 th October, 2012, the Revenue representative submitted that as per letter dated 10.10.2012, the notice had been withdrawn . He also assured the Bench that the direction of the CESTAT would be complied within one month .

Taking cognizance of the aforesaid assurance given by the Revenue representative, the bench directed the ‘concerned officer' to return the excess amount recovered within 30 days over and above the service tax amount of Rs.17,14,394/-, to the applicant.

The compliance was to be reported on 19 th November, 2012. See 2012-TIOL-1935-CESTAT-MUM.

Before the matter came up before the CESTAT to ascertain the compliance, the Revenue sought an adjournment to 10.12.2012.

When the case was called by the Bench on the 10 th December, 2012, no written communication was received from the Revenue on the matter.

So, the Bench waited for one more day .

When the matter was taken up on the 11 th December, 2012, the Revenue representative submitted a letter dated 10.12.2012 of the Deputy Commissioner (Review), Central Excise, Raigad stating that they have not received a certified copy of the order (of the CESTAT) till date and a photocopy of the impugned CESTAT order was received by them as an enclosure to the letter dated 19.11.2012 from the Commissioner(AR) office; that the same is under process for acceptance by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad and the order is to be implemented only after acceptance by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad; that four weeks time would be required therefor.

Quite obviously, the CESTAT was peeved with such an EXCUSE and, therefore, the Bench passed the following order -

“3. While passing the order dated 12.10.2012, it was committed by the learned A.R that notice under section 87 has been withdrawn and the direction of the Tribunal will be complied within one month. Two months have elapsed since then and no action has been taken by the concerned officer. This is wilful disobedience of the directions of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Dy. Commissioner, Service Tax Division, Raigad Commissionerate is hereby directed to show cause as to why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him for non-compliance of the direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2012 cited supra. This notice is returnable within 15 days from today.

4. The order be given by Dasti.”

The fifteen days time expires on the 27 th December, 2012.

Fireworks ...the New Year should certainly be bad for the “concerned officer” unless the Raigad Commissionerate is contemplating trying its luck in the High Court!

(See 2012-TIOL-1936-CESTAT-MUM)