By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 29, 2015: A brief history -

+ The appellant had mentioned before the Bench a matter regarding non-implementation of the Tribunal's order dated 05/03/2013 wherein the appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief by setting aside the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva.

+ When the non-implementation of the order was brought to the notice of the Tribunal vide a Miscellaneous Application, the Tribunal passed another order 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 appellant informed the Bench that the aforesaid order of Tribunal has also not been complied with. And, therefore, the appellant prayed for initiating suitable action against the department.

The Bench noted that the AR is not able to tell about the progress of the implementation of the impugned order. Instead, the AR produced a copy of letter dated 21/10/2014 addressed to the AR wherein it is mentioned that they (Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva) have not received the copy of the order dated 09/09/2014 or direction of CESTAT and request for another copy of the order.

The CESTAT mentioned that the AR was present in the Court when the order was dictated;it was his duty to intimate the same to the concerned authorities of the decision of the Tribunal; that in any case, the said order dated 09/09/2014 was given as "Dasti"; that AR also confirmed that he had collected a copy of the order and had communicated the same to the respondent Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.

Observing that the letter dated 21/10/2014 was only a lame excuse for not implementing the directions of the Tribunal & that in any case, the order dated 05/03/2013 directing the refund was already available with the department for implementation, the Bench minced no words in ordering thus-

"…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 Tribunal's 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."

We reported this order dated 22.10.2014 as 2014-TIOL-2224-CESTAT-MUM.

Incidentally, another Miscellaneous order no. M/1039/15/CB dt. 02.03.2015 came to be passed by the Bench whereunder the Commissioner was called to explain the factual discrepancy in her statement dt. 27.11.2014 that action has been initiated when refund had already been rejected earlier on 24.11.2014.

Now, the Revenue is before the CESTAT with a Miscellaneous application in response to the above order dated 02.03.2015.

The respondent is not representated.

The Bench while disposing of the miscellaneous application observed -

"2. It is now certified by the Commissioner that there was no intention of not complying with the orders of the CESTAT. The language used by her in the Affidavit was only a manner of drafting. She intended to say that "action had been initiated or action was initiated". In view of the statement, we accept the Commissioner's explanation."

In passing: Eats Shoots & Leaves: Why, Commas Really Do Make a Difference - Lynne Truss

(See 2015-TIOL-1816-CESTAT-MUM)