Central excise authorities must implement tribunal orders without delay, cannot circumvent through appellate review

CESTAT Mumbai held that tribunal orders must be implemented without delay by central excise authorities. The original authority correctly processed a CENVAT credit refund following tribunal directions, but the jurisdictional Commissioner disregarded the order and sought appellate review. The first appellate authority erred by supporting this transgression instead of ensuring compliance. The reviewing authority's attempt to circumvent tribunal directions through Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was impermissible. Appeal allowed, emphasizing finality of tribunal orders and mandatory implementation by excise formations.

---

---

Issues involved: Conformity of appellate determination against M/s Raymond Limited in setting aside the refund sanctioned by the original authority.

Summary:
The appeals revolved around the conformity of the appellate determination against M/s Raymond Limited, specifically regarding the refund sanctioned by the original authority. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the original authority for compliance with the remand order. The first appeal was related to the denial of a refund claimed by M/s Raymond Limited due to the exemption of their final products from central excise duties. The Tribunal directed the original authority to ascertain certain facts before sanctioning the refund. Subsequently, the original authority permitted the refund, which was challenged by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, leading to the current appeal.

The dispute centered on whether the first appellate authority had the competence to decide on the refund entitlement, considering the remand order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was final, and it was crucial for the central excise formations to implement the order without delay. The reviewing authority's deviation from the Tribunal's direction was deemed unacceptable, as emphasized by the principles of judicial discipline highlighted in a Supreme Court ruling. The Tribunal concluded that the reviewing authority and the first appellate authority had erred in impeding the implementation of the Tribunal's order, leading to the allowance of the appeals by M/s Raymond Limited.

In conclusion, the impugned orders were deemed invalid, and the supervisory administration was urged to address the misconduct of the first appellate authority and the reviewing Commissioner. The appeals of M/s Raymond Limited were allowed, with any consequential relief to be granted accordingly.

---