By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 02, 2016: THE appellant has filed a Miscellaneous application under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 for seeking implementation of the Tribunal's final Order No. A/1028/2011-WZB/EB/C-II dated 09-12-2011.

It is submitted that the Tribunal had vide the captioned order categorically directed the Original Authority for reconsideration of case of the appellant under Section 22 of the Customs Act to determine the appellant's duty liability. And, that this order has not been implemented even after passing of more than four years for no reason.

The AR referred to a letter issued by the CCE, Belapur addressed to the Addl. Commissioner (AR) and wherein the Commissioner has stated that the denovo adjudication as per the remand order of the CESTAT cannot be made for the reason that in the same matter, on the issue of reversal of Cenvat Credit, the Revenue has also filed an Appeal No. E/1879/10.

The Bench, after considering the submissions, observed -

"5. We find from the order of this Tribunal dated 09-12-2011 there is a clear direction to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a denovo adjudication order. As regard the Revenue's appeal, we find that in both the cases, the issue is different. Moreover the Commissioner despite the clear direction in the remand by this Tribunal cannot use his discretion, not to pass denovo adjudication order. We further direct the Commissioner to ensure that the denovo adjudication must be passed within one month from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance thereof on 20 th February, 2016..."

The Misc. application was allowed in the above terms.

(See 2016-TIOL-309-CESTAT-MUM)