TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses application seeking enforcement of gold release order</h1> <h3>SHARAD KUMAR AGARWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI</h3> SHARAD KUMAR AGARWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 341 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Implementation of Tribunal's order for release of gold and interest on prevailing market price.Analysis:The case involved a miscellaneous application filed under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 seeking direction for implementing the Tribunal's Order dated 23-11-2001, which had not been implemented yet. The applicant sought the release of 800 tolas of gold to the appellants as per the Tribunal's order and also requested interest on the prevailing market price of gold. The Tribunal examined Rule 41, which allows it to make necessary orders or directions to give effect to its orders or prevent abuse of its process. This rule is part of the procedural rules framed by the Tribunal itself under the powers conferred by the Customs Act, 1962.The Tribunal highlighted the constitutional framework under Article 323B, which authorizes the Parliament to enact laws to set up Tribunals and specify their powers, including the power to punish for contempt and enforce orders. However, in the case of CESTAT set up under the Customs Act, 1962, specific powers for contempt or order enforcement were not provided. While the Tribunal has certain powers under the Act for matters like discovery, inspection, and issuing commissions, these are not sufficient for enforcing final orders. The Tribunal emphasized that without explicit legal powers to punish for contempt or enforce orders, it cannot assume such authority, especially when the law does not grant these powers.The Tribunal referred to a case involving the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to illustrate that contempt of a Tribunal can be punished and orders enforced if specific legal provisions exist. However, in the absence of such provisions under the Customs Act for CESTAT, the Tribunal cannot claim powers it has not been granted. The Tribunal concluded that the miscellaneous application seeking enforcement of the order was misconceived due to the lack of legal authority for the Tribunal to enforce its orders. Therefore, the application was dismissed based on the Tribunal's findings regarding its jurisdiction and powers as established by law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
