Cus - Departmental officers have no respect to orders of Tribunal as well as orders of High Court - 'Concerned' officer is directed to comply with order of HC within two days failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated: CESTAT
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, FEB 20, 2013: THE Bombay High Court in paragraph 2 of its order dated 25/07/2012 passed in Writ Petition no. 6977 of 2012, recorded thus - 'the Counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, stated that the appeal against the order-in-original dated 12 th April, 2012 with an application for stay would be filed before this Tribunal on or before 15th August, 2012. The counsel for the Revenue further states that if the stay of the order-in-original is not granted by the CESTAT, the Revenue shall implement the order-in-original within six weeks from the date of communication of the order passed by the CESTAT rejecting the stay application, unless the said order of the CESTAT itself is not stayed. Statement by the counsel for the Revenue is accepted '.
Vide its order dated 09/10/2012 the CESTAT rejected the Revenue appeal.
Since after passing of this order the Revenue did not implement the order-in-original, the appellant took up the matter before the Bench and the CESTAT vide its order dated 11/02/2013 [ 2013-TIOL-330-CESTAT-MUM ] held – "We, therefore, direct the concerned officer i.e. implementing authority to report by 13/02/2013 why the said order has not been implemented and not to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the erring officer."
On 13/02/2013, when the matter was called for compliance, the Commissioner (AR) submitted that the office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs is examining as to whether the CESTAT order should be accepted or an appeal should be filed against the same. He further mentioned that pending the acceptance or otherwise of the final order of this Tribunal the release of 10% of the seized goods kept as security in lieu of Bank Guarantee is kept pending in accordance with the directions of the office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs.
The Bench was aghast at this tepid response and observed thus -
"3. The direction of the Hon'ble High Court is very much clear on the undertaking given by the Counsel for the Revenue that if they could not get stay from this Tribunal, the order-in-original shall be implemented within six weeks from the date of the communication of the order of the CESTAT.
4. Admittedly, as per the report filed by the learned Commissioner (A.R) that neither the order of the Hon'ble High Court has been complied with nor any stay against the order of this Tribunal dated 09.10.2012 has been obtained till to-date which was pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2012.
5. By the order dated 09.10.2012, this Tribunal not only dismissed stay application but also dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. In these circumstances, the revenue is bound by the undertaking given by the Counsel for the Revenue to comply the order of this Tribunal within six weeks of the communications of the order which was pronounced on 09.10.2012, this act of the revenue clearly shows that the departmental officers have no respect to the orders of this Tribunal as well as the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
6. In these circumstances, the concerned officer is directed to comply with the order dated 25.07.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay within 2 days failing which show-cause notice will be issued to the concerned officer, who is dealing with the case, as to why contempt of the court proceedings should not be initiated against him for not releasing the goods. Notice is returnable on 18.02.2013."
In the days to come, we will tell you what happened on the D-day.
(See 2013-TIOL-331-CESTAT-MUM)
