TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Commissioner's Order, Grants Importer Refund</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, allowing the importer's appeal for a refund of duty ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Notification No. 53/97-Cus. Issues:1. Setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs and allowing the importer's appeal for refund of duty.2. Implementation of the Tribunal's final order despite a writ petition and appeal filed by the Revenue.Issue 1: Setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal for refund:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, in a Final Order, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, and allowed the importer's appeal. This decision entitled the applicants to a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 10,80,35,158/- along with appropriate interest. The Tribunal's ruling was based on the merits of the case, leading to the favorable outcome for the importer.Issue 2: Implementation of the Tribunal's final order despite Revenue's appeal and writ petition:Upon the filing of an application in accordance with Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Bench directed the Revenue to seek clarification from the Chief Commissioner regarding the non-implementation of the Tribunal's final order. It was noted that the Revenue had filed a writ petition and an appeal before the High Court against the CESTAT final order. However, as there was no stay order from the High Court on the Tribunal's order, the Tribunal directed the implementation of its order. The mere admission of the Revenue's appeal was deemed insufficient to justify non-implementation. The Tribunal mandated the implementation of its order and required a report on the same within four weeks, with compliance to be reported by a specified date.Conclusion:The judgment highlighted the Tribunal's authority to direct the implementation of its final order despite the pendency of a Revenue appeal and writ petition. The decision underscored the importance of compliance with Tribunal orders and emphasized that mere admission of an appeal does not automatically suspend the implementation of the Tribunal's ruling. The ruling aimed to ensure the timely and effective execution of judicial decisions for all parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
