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>Appellate Tribunal cracks down on delayed refund decisions, warns of contempt</h1> <h3>SAI ORGANIC & CHEMICAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA</h3> SAI ORGANIC & CHEMICAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA - TMI Issues:Non-compliance with directions for considering unjust enrichment in refund claims, delay in decision-making by refund sanctioning authority, contempt proceedings for non-compliance with court orders.Analysis:The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI addresses the issue of non-compliance with directions regarding the consideration of unjust enrichment in refund claims filed by the appellants, M/s Sai Organic & Chemical and M/s VikasGlobalone Ltd. The Tribunal had previously directed the concerned authority to decide on the bar of unjust enrichment within 30 days. However, the refund sanctioning authority failed to adhere to these directions, leading to a delay in the decision-making process. The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted this delay and requested immediate action to resolve the matter.Regarding the delay in decision-making, the Tribunal noted that despite specific directions, the refund sanctioning authority did not comply with the orders passed by the Tribunal. After reviewing the records and hearing arguments from both parties, the Tribunal observed a complete disregard and defiance by the refund sanctioning authority. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the concerned authority to promptly pass orders on the refund claims and report compliance by a specified date, emphasizing the need for immediate action to resolve the issue.Moreover, the judgment warned the refund sanctioning authority of potential contempt proceedings if they failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. The presence of the learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) in court served as notice to the authority regarding the consequences of non-compliance. The Tribunal made it clear that failure to pass a decision on the refund claim and communicate it to the appellant would result in liability for contempt proceedings. The judgment concluded by ordering the issuance of the order dasti, emphasizing the urgency and importance of resolving the matter promptly to ensure compliance with court directives.
TaxTMI 