2006 (7) TMI 560 - AT - Central Excise

'Bench Grants Relief on Refund Claim Under Notification No. 6/2000' /2000

TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL

The Bench granted relief to the appellants for their refund claim, emphasizing entitlement under Notification No. 6/2000. The rejection of the Chartered ... Judicial discipline - Tribunal’s order - Non-implementation of Issues:Refund claim rejection, Contempt of Court, Non-implementation of Tribunal's order, Gross judicial indiscipline.Refund Claim Rejection:The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,39,41,660/- which was initially rejected by the Original authority and later by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants then appealed before the Bench, which ultimately passed Final Order No. 447/2005, granting relief to the appellants based on the entitlement under Notification No. 6/2000. The Final Order emphasized that the duty paid should be refunded to the appellants as there was no evidence to suggest that the goods received on payment of duty were not used in the manufacture of the original equipment. The rejection of the Chartered Accountant's Certificate without proper reason was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.Contempt of Court:The appellants, after the Tribunal's Final Order granting them relief, requested the refund of duty along with interest. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs issued a show cause notice to the appellants instead of granting the refund. The appellants argued that the non-implementation of the Tribunal's order amounted to Contempt of Court. They cited a Larger Bench decision and various case laws to support their contention that the refusal to grant a refund despite final orders of the Tribunal would constitute Contempt of Tribunal.Non-implementation of Tribunal's Order:The Tribunal highlighted that its Final Order provided relief to the appellants, and any disagreement by the Revenue should be addressed through appeal to a higher judicial forum. The Tribunal emphasized that unless the Revenue obtained a stay against the operation of the Tribunal's order, they were duty-bound to implement it. Failure to implement the Tribunal's order was considered gross judicial indiscipline. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to implement the Tribunal's order within a week from the date of receipt of the directive, as per Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of refund claim rejection, Contempt of Court, non-implementation of the Tribunal's order, and gross judicial indiscipline. It upheld the appellants' entitlement to the refund based on relevant notifications and directed the Revenue to implement the Tribunal's order promptly. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial decisions and highlighted the consequences of failing to comply with Tribunal orders.